LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2025-13462: tarfile: Skip DIRTYPE normalization during GNU LONGNAME/LONGLINK handling

The "tarfile" module would still apply normalization of AREGTYPE (\x00) blocks to DIRTYPE, even while processing a multi-block member such as GNUTYPE_LONGNAME or GNUTYPE_LONGLINK. This could result in a crafted tar archive being misinterpreted by the tarfile module compared to other implementations.

LowCVSS 2Not KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysislow

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

A specially crafted tar archive can cause Python’s tarfile module to interpret an entry differently from other archive tools. The documented consequence is limited to integrity: files or archive members may be handled incorrectly. Exploitation requires local access, some privileges, preparation, and high complexity, making the overall business risk low.

Executive priority

Treat this as routine, targeted remediation rather than an emergency. Prioritize internet-facing upload services and software-supply-chain pipelines that process untrusted tar files. Other systems can follow normal patch cycles after confirming whether they use tarfile and whether their Python build contains the correction.

Technical view

During GNU LONGNAME or LONGLINK multi-block processing, tarfile incorrectly normalized AREGTYPE (NUL) headers to DIRTYPE. This parser inconsistency could change how a crafted archive member is classified relative to other tar implementations. CVSS 4.0 is 2.0, with low integrity impact and no documented confidentiality or availability impact.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely where CPython applications use tarfile to inspect or extract archives supplied by users, tenants, build pipelines, or other untrusted sources. The supplied affected-version data is ambiguous and does not establish precise vulnerable or fixed release boundaries; verify the deployed build against Python’s advisory and patches.

Exploitation context

The CVE is not listed in KEV, and the supplied sources do not report active exploitation. The CVSS vector describes local access, high complexity, a preparatory condition, and low privileges. A threat actor would also need a workflow that processes a deliberately malformed tar archive.

Researcher notes

The security boundary is parser agreement: tarfile’s AREGTYPE-to-DIRTYPE normalization persisted while consuming GNU long-name or long-link metadata. The supplied record maps this to input validation, unrestricted upload, and injection-related CWEs, but documents only low integrity impact. Exact affected and fixed release ranges remain unclear in the bundle.

Mitigation direction

  • Apply a vendor-supported CPython release containing the referenced correction.
  • Check Python’s security advisory for fixed versions applicable to each maintained runtime.
  • Restrict untrusted tar uploads and processing until affected runtimes are updated.
  • Run archive handling with minimal filesystem permissions and isolated destinations.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory CPython versions used by services, developer tools, and build pipelines.
  • Identify code paths that process tar archives with Python’s tarfile module.
  • Confirm installed builds include the vendor correction or an applicable backport.
  • Review archive sources and determine whether untrusted users can reach affected workflows.
  • Test legitimate GNU long-name and long-link archives after updating.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
6

Public sources used

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-20: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-434: File access and web shell behavior lookup

File traversal and upload weaknesses can lead teams to review file, web shell, execution, and collection telemetry. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-74: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2025-13462 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Low
CVSS
2 (4.0)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

1CVSS vectors
3Timeline events
1ADP providers
10Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: noTechnical Impact: partial

CVSS vector scores

1 official score

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
2CVSS 4.0LowCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N——PSF

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 4.0 score

2Low
CVSS 4.0 vector shape for CVE-2025-13462Attack VectorAttack ComplexityAttack RequirementsPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionVS ConfidentialityVS IntegrityVS AvailabilitySS ConfidentialitySS IntegritySS Availability

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Attack Requirements
NonePresent
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NonePassiveActive
VS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
VS Integrity
HighLowNone
VS Availability
HighLowNone
SS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
SS Integrity
HighLowNone
SS Availability
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  3. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
other:ssvc

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
Python Software FoundationCPython0, 3.11.0, 3.12.0, 3.13.0, 3.14.0, 3.15.0a1unaffected
Weakness

CWE details

CWE-20CWE-434CWE-74

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.