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

This is a low-severity CPython tarfile parsing issue. A crafted tar archive can be read differently by Python than by other tar tools because special GNU long name/link records were normalized incorrectly. The source bundle shows limited integrity impact, not remote code execution or data theft.

Executive priority

Treat as routine patch management unless your business accepts untrusted tar uploads or uses Python tarfile in build, deployment, or ingestion pipelines. Prioritize inventory and planned runtime updates over emergency response.

Technical view

During GNU LONGNAME/LONGLINK handling, tarfile could normalize AREGTYPE zero blocks to DIRTYPE inside a multi-block member. That parser inconsistency may cause crafted archives to be misinterpreted relative to other implementations. The CVSS vector indicates local attack vector, high complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, and low integrity impact only.

Likely exposure

Exposure is mainly Python applications or automation that parse tar archives with CPython tarfile, especially user-supplied archives. The bundle identifies Python Software Foundation CPython versions 3.14.0 and 3.15.0a1, with default status otherwise unaffected.

Exploitation context

The bundle does not cite active exploitation, and KEV is false. Any practical abuse appears constrained by local attack vector, high complexity, required attack conditions, and low integrity impact. Evidence is incomplete on real-world exploitation or downstream package impact.

Researcher notes

The key issue is parser differential behavior during GNU long name/link member processing, not a published extraction primitive in the supplied evidence. Focus validation on CPython tarfile behavior, affected versions, and whether application security decisions rely on consistent tar interpretation.

Mitigation direction

  • Check the Python security announcement and CPython issue for vendor guidance.
  • Move affected CPython runtimes to a vendor-fixed release when available.
  • Apply the referenced CPython patches if maintaining a source-built runtime.
  • Avoid processing untrusted tar archives with affected runtimes where practical.
  • Use stricter archive validation around workflows that ingest user-controlled tar files.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory CPython versions used by services, CI jobs, and archive-processing tooling.
  • Identify code paths using the Python tarfile module on untrusted archives.
  • Confirm affected runtimes include the relevant CPython patch commits or fixed release.
  • Review archive ingestion workflows for trust boundaries and post-extraction assumptions.
  • Track the PSF advisory for precise affected and fixed version details.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
11

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, 3.14.0, 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.