What is CVE-2026-17106?

CVE-2026-17106 is Tar extraction in moby/go-archive can write outside the destination directory via link following. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-59 CWE-59.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-17106. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-17106 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

11 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-17106 using CVSS 7.1, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2026-17106

CVE-2026-17106 — Tar extraction in moby/go-archive can write outside the destination directory via link following

The tar extraction routines in moby/go-archive (Unpack, UnpackLayer, Untar/UntarUncompressed, and the ApplyLayer helpers) do not confine filesystem operations to the destination directory. The extractor decides where each archive entry lands using lexical string checks and then performs the filesystem operation on a path that is resolved by the OS, so links introduced by the archive can be followed out of the destination directory. An attacker who controls the contents of an archive can create or overwrite files at arbitrary paths writable by the extracting process.

Published Aug 18, 2026Updated Aug 18, 2026Sources: NVD, moby (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

moby

6 products listed

CVSS base

7.1

high

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade go-archive to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
moby	go-archive	0 to < 0.3.0	Vulnerable
Docker	Docker Sandboxes	0 to < 0.38.0	Vulnerable
Docker	Docker Desktop	0 to < 4.86.0	Vulnerable
Docker	Docker Engine	0 to < 29.7.0	Vulnerable
Docker	Docker CLI	0 to < 29.7.0	Vulnerable
Docker	Docker Compose	0 to < 5.4.0	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Scope

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
7.1	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	moby (CNA)

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

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-59 · Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')

Read Files or Directories
Modify Files or Directories
Bypass Protection Mechanism
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Mitigation: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to provide protected areas that can be trusted.::

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-59

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-132 · Symlink AttackCAPEC-17 · Using Malicious FilesCAPEC-76 · Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

T1547.009Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Shortcut Modification
T1574.005Hijack Execution Flow: Executable Installer File Permissions Weakness
T1574.010Hijack Execution Flow: Services File Permissions Weakness

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Exploit entries

Exploit-DB and CTI exploit indexes

Social mentions

Posts naming this CVE. Attention, not evidence of exploitation — it spikes on disclosure and decays whether or not anything is exploited.

2 more posts on this CVEShowing 5 of 7 · Who is discussing this CVE, and how loudlyUnlock free

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /go-archive, /UntarUncompressed.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 11 public PoC repositories were reported.

EDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 7.1 (AV:L)
Aug 18, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 18, 2026 · NVD
Cve is exploited 686f6c61/POC-CopyEscape-CVE-2026-17106
Aug 13, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
Cve is exploited masasron/CopyEscape-CVE-2026-17106
Aug 12, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
Cve is exploited HackSpeak/CVE-2026-17106
Aug 12, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

5×TweetsAug 11, 2026 – Aug 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
3×SvrsAug 12, 2026 – Aug 14, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
3×Github ReposAug 9, 2026 – Aug 12, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
1×CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
1×CVE appeared in the Cve Trends.Aug 13, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

8 on the record

docs.docker.com/desktop/release-notes/#4860
Vendor Advisory
docs.docker.com/engine/release-notes/29/#2970
Vendor Advisory
github.com/docker/cli/releases/tag/v29.7.0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST
github.com/docker/compose/releases/tag/v5.4.0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST
github.com/docker/sbx-releases/releases/tag/v0.38.0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST
github.com/moby/go-archive/releases/tag/v0.3.0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST
github.com/moby/go-archive/security/advisories/GHSA-hfg8-hc9c-6c3h
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST
github.com/masasron/CopyEscape-CVE-2026-17106
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Coverage

3 stories from the feeds we poll

Elsewhere on this site

mobyevery CVE for this vendor
Dockerevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-59other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-17106 is Tar extraction in moby/go-archive can write outside the destination directory via link following, a high vulnerability affecting go-archive, Docker Sandboxes, Docker Desktop, Docker Engine, Docker CLI, Docker Compose from moby, Docker. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-17106. Public exploit evidence is: 11 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7.1 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.