GHSA-PJ97-4P9W-GX3Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-14 22:32 – Updated: 2026-04-24 20:42Impact
This vulnerability impacts users of zarf package inspect sbom or zarf package inspect documentation on untrusted packages.
Patches
4793, now fixed in version v0.74.2
Workarounds
Avoid inspecting unsigned packages
Description
The package inspect sbom and package inspect documentation subcommands construct output file paths by joining a user-controlled output directory with the package's Metadata.Name field, which is attacker-controlled data read from the package archive. The Metadata.Name field is validated against a regex on create, ^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9\-]*$, however a malicious user could unarchive a package to change the .Metadata.Name field and the files inside the SBOMS.tar. This would lead to arbitrary file write in a location of the attackers choosing.
Neither location sanitizes or validates the package name before using it in the file path.
SBOM inspection:
outputPath := filepath.Join(o.outputDir, pkgLayout.Pkg.Metadata.Name)
err = pkgLayout.GetSBOM(ctx, outputPath)
Documentation inspection (line 1219):
outputPath := filepath.Join(o.outputDir, fmt.Sprintf("%s-documentation", pkgLayout.Pkg.Metadata.Name))
return pkgLayout.GetDocumentation(ctx, outputPath, o.keys)
pkgLayout.Pkg.Metadata.Name is read directly from the untrusted package's zarf.yaml manifest. An attacker can craft a malicious Zarf package where Metadata.Name contains path traversal sequences or root paths such as ../../etc/cron.d/malicious or /home/user/.ssh/authorized_keys.
CVSS Explainations
Attack Vector
Verdict: Network
A malicious package could be published to OCI and inspected directly with zarf package inspect sbom oci://<bad-package>
Attack Complexity
Verdict: Low It is not complicated to make and publish a malicious package. The Attacker only needs to edit the zarf.yaml and sboms.tar then edit the checksums.
Privileges Required
Verdict: None
The attacker is relying on the runner of zarf package inspect sbom|documentation and needs no other privileges.
User Interaction
Verdict: Required The user must run the inspect command
Scope
Verdict: Unchanged The vulnerability operates entirely within the permissions of the user running zarf package inspect. The file write can't escape the privilege boundary of that user
Confidentiality
Verdict: None This is an arbitrary file write vulnerability. The attacker can place or overwrite files on the filesystem but the vulnerability does not provide any mechanism to read or exfiltrate data from the target system.
Integrity
Verdict: High The attacker controls both the file path (via Metadata.Name) and the file content (via the SBOM or documentation files inside the archive). This allows writing attacker-controlled content to arbitrary locations on the filesystem, limited only by the permissions of the user running the inspect command. Realistic exploitation includes writing SSH authorized_keys, cron jobs, or shell profiles.
Availability
Verdict: Low The vulnerability does not directly target service availability. However, an attacker could overwrite files that cause system disruption.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/zarf-dev/zarf"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.23.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.74.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40090"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-14T22:32:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-15T04:17:43Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThis vulnerability impacts users of `zarf package inspect sbom` or `zarf package inspect documentation` on untrusted packages.\n\n### Patches\n#4793, now fixed in version v0.74.2\n\n### Workarounds\nAvoid inspecting unsigned packages\n\n## Description\n\nThe `package inspect sbom` and `package inspect documentation` subcommands construct output file paths by joining a user-controlled output directory with the package\u0027s `Metadata.Name` field, which is attacker-controlled data read from the package archive. The `Metadata.Name` field is validated against a regex on create, `^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9\\-]*$`, however a malicious user could unarchive a package to change the `.Metadata.Name` field and the files inside the SBOMS.tar. This would lead to arbitrary file write in a location of the attackers choosing. \n\nNeither location sanitizes or validates the package name before using it in the file path.\n\n**SBOM inspection:**\n```go\noutputPath := filepath.Join(o.outputDir, pkgLayout.Pkg.Metadata.Name)\nerr = pkgLayout.GetSBOM(ctx, outputPath)\n```\n\n**Documentation inspection (line 1219):**\n```go\noutputPath := filepath.Join(o.outputDir, fmt.Sprintf(\"%s-documentation\", pkgLayout.Pkg.Metadata.Name))\nreturn pkgLayout.GetDocumentation(ctx, outputPath, o.keys)\n```\n\n`pkgLayout.Pkg.Metadata.Name` is read directly from the untrusted package\u0027s `zarf.yaml` manifest. An attacker can craft a malicious Zarf package where `Metadata.Name` contains path traversal sequences or root paths such as `../../etc/cron.d/malicious` or `/home/user/.ssh/authorized_keys`.\n\n### CVSS Explainations\n#### Attack Vector\nVerdict: Network\nA malicious package could be published to OCI and inspected directly with `zarf package inspect sbom oci://\u003cbad-package\u003e`\n\n#### Attack Complexity \nVerdict: Low\nIt is not complicated to make and publish a malicious package. The Attacker only needs to edit the zarf.yaml and sboms.tar then edit the checksums.\n\n#### Privileges Required\nVerdict: None\nThe attacker is relying on the runner of `zarf package inspect sbom|documentation` and needs no other privileges.\n\n#### User Interaction\nVerdict: Required\nThe user must run the inspect command\n\n#### Scope\nVerdict: Unchanged\nThe vulnerability operates entirely within the permissions of the user running zarf package inspect. The file write can\u0027t escape the privilege boundary of that user \n\n#### Confidentiality\nVerdict: None\nThis is an arbitrary file write vulnerability. The attacker can place or overwrite files on the filesystem but the vulnerability does not provide any mechanism to read or exfiltrate data from the target system.\n\n#### Integrity\nVerdict: High\nThe attacker controls both the file path (via Metadata.Name) and the file content (via the SBOM or documentation files inside the archive). This allows writing attacker-controlled content to arbitrary locations on the filesystem, limited only by the permissions of the user running the inspect command. Realistic exploitation includes writing SSH authorized_keys, cron jobs, or shell profiles.\n\n### Availability\nVerdict: Low\nThe vulnerability does not directly target service availability. However, an attacker could overwrite files that cause system disruption.",
"id": "GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q",
"modified": "2026-04-24T20:42:46Z",
"published": "2026-04-14T22:32:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zarf-dev/zarf/security/advisories/GHSA-pj97-4p9w-gx3q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40090"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zarf-dev/zarf/pull/4793"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/zarf-dev/zarf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Zarf has a Path Traversal via Malicious Package Metadata.Name \u2014 Arbitrary File Write"
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.