Repository navigation
gh-161323: Refuse drive-relative paths in tarfile extraction filters #161334
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b7444fc
gh-161323: Refuse drive-relative paths in tarfile extraction filters
gpshead 683d174
docs simplification
gpshead 18550d7
mention the cve number in the news entry since we have one.
gpshead 8f0e071
rename the NEWS file with issue number
gpshead 36366e4
Merge branch 'main' into scanfix-tarfile-rsl1f4at
gpshead File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions
5
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Security/2026-10-22-08-07-52.gh-issue-161323.q7Drv2.rst
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
| On Windows, the ``'tar'`` and ``'data'`` :mod:`tarfile` extraction filters | ||
| now refuse member names and link targets that have a drive but are not | ||
| absolute, such as ``C:foo``, with :exc:`~tarfile.AbsolutePathError` or | ||
| :exc:`~tarfile.AbsoluteLinkError`. Such members could be extracted outside | ||
| the destination directory. Fixes :cve:`2026-107784`. |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we please record the CVE metadata in the standard format, rather than in the prose?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
where do we describe what form should be used?
Our docs compilation accepted the :cve: ReST tag so I assumed that counted. is that not considered "the standard format"? it appears elsewhere in our docs.
can we make forms we don't want fail to pass CI? prevention is the best medicine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I meant the:
at the top of the file. That way it’s rendered beside the issue number in the changelog.
It would be a little hard to verify in the CI, there may be false positives…