CVE-2026-41035 | Samba rsync up to 3.4.1 Qsort Call receive_xattr length length parameter
VulDBArchived Apr 16, 2026✓ Full text saved
A vulnerability classified as critical was found in Samba rsync up to 3.4.1 . Affected by this vulnerability is the function receive_xattr of the component Qsort Call Handler . Such manipulation of the argument length leads to improper handling of length parameter inconsistency. This vulnerability is documented as CVE-2026-41035 . The attack can be executed remotely. There is not any exploit available.
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
VDB-357897 · CVE-2026-41035 · GCVE-0-2026-41035
SAMBA RSYNC UP TO 3.4.1 QSORT CALL RECEIVE_XATTR LENGTH LENGTH PARAMETER
HISTORYDIFFRELATEJSONXMLCTI
CVSS Meta Temp Score Current Exploit Price (≈) CTI Interest Score
6.8 $0-$5k 2.63+
Summaryinfo
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in Samba rsync up to 3.4.1. Affected by this issue is the function receive_xattr of the component Qsort Call Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument length results in length parameter. This vulnerability is reported as CVE-2026-41035. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.
Detailsinfo
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Samba rsync up to 3.4.1. This affects the function receive_xattr of the component Qsort Call Handler. The manipulation of the argument length with an unknown input leads to a length parameter vulnerability. CWE is classifying the issue as CWE-130. The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data. This is going to have an impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:
In rsync 3.0.1 through 3.4.1, receive_xattr relies on an untrusted length value during a qsort call, leading to a receiver use-after-free. The victim must run rsync with -X (aka --xattrs). On Linux, many (but not all) common configurations are vulnerable. Non-Linux platforms are more widely vulnerable.
The advisory is shared at openwall.com. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-41035 since 04/16/2026. The exploitability is told to be easy. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available. The price for an exploit might be around USD $0-$5k at the moment (estimation calculated on 04/16/2026).
There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.
Productinfo
Type
File Transfer Software
Vendor
Samba
Name
rsync
Version
3.4.0
3.4.1
License
open-source
CPE 2.3info
🔒
🔒
CPE 2.2info
🔒
🔒
CVSSv4info
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3info
VulDB Meta Base Score: 6.8
VulDB Meta Temp Score: 6.8
VulDB Base Score: 6.3
VulDB Temp Score: 6.3
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CNA Base Score: 7.4
CNA Vector (MITRE): 🔒
CVSSv2info
Vector Complexity Authentication Confidentiality Integrity Availability
Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock
Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock
Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock
VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploitinginfo
Class: Length parameter
CWE: CWE-130 / CWE-119
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒
0-Day Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock
Today Unlock Unlock Unlock Unlock
Threat Intelligenceinfo
Interest: 🔍
Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasuresinfo
Recommended: no mitigation known
Status: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔒
Timelineinfo
04/16/2026 Advisory disclosed
04/16/2026 +0 days CVE reserved
04/16/2026 +0 days VulDB entry created
04/16/2026 +0 days VulDB entry last update
Sourcesinfo
Advisory: openwall.com
Status: Not defined
CVE: CVE-2026-41035 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-41035
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-357897
Entryinfo
Created: 04/16/2026 09:17
Changes: 04/16/2026 09:17 (64)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 99:D85:101
Discussion
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.
◂ PreviousOverviewNext ▸