<feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<title>samba.git/python/samba/safe_tarfile.py, branch talloc-2.4.0</title>
<subtitle>Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository.</subtitle>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.exis.tech/samba.git/'/>
<entry>
<title>CVE-2007-4559 python: ensure sanity in our tarfiles</title>
<updated>2022-10-04T03:48:43+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Douglas Bagnall</name>
<email>douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz</email>
</author>
<published>2022-09-23T00:32:25+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.exis.tech/samba.git/commit/?id=37406b9d97f123576c811b9fe22b39b02af62f83'/>
<id>37406b9d97f123576c811b9fe22b39b02af62f83</id>
<content type='text'>
Python's tarfile module is not very careful about paths that step out
of the target directory. We can be a bit better at little cost.

This was reported in 2007[1], and has recently been publicised [2, for
example].

We were informed of this bug in December 2021 by Luis Alberto López
Alvar, but decided then that there were no circumstances under which
this was a security concern. That is, if you can alter the backup
files, you can already do worse things. But there is a case to guard
against an administrator being tricked into trying to restore a file
that isn't based on a real backup.

[1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-4559
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/22/python_vulnerability_tarfile/

BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15185

Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall &lt;douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz&gt;
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett &lt;abartlet@samba.org&gt;

Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett &lt;abartlet@samba.org&gt;
Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Oct  4 03:48:43 UTC 2022 on sn-devel-184
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Python's tarfile module is not very careful about paths that step out
of the target directory. We can be a bit better at little cost.

This was reported in 2007[1], and has recently been publicised [2, for
example].

We were informed of this bug in December 2021 by Luis Alberto López
Alvar, but decided then that there were no circumstances under which
this was a security concern. That is, if you can alter the backup
files, you can already do worse things. But there is a case to guard
against an administrator being tricked into trying to restore a file
that isn't based on a real backup.

[1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-4559
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/22/python_vulnerability_tarfile/

BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15185

Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall &lt;douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz&gt;
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett &lt;abartlet@samba.org&gt;

Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett &lt;abartlet@samba.org&gt;
Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Oct  4 03:48:43 UTC 2022 on sn-devel-184
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
