CVE-2026-84268
CVE-2026-84268 — Gvfs: sftp: heap-based buffer overflow in read_reply()
A flaw was found in the SFTP backend in gvfs. When mounting a share and reading a file, a malicious SFTP server can cause read_reply() to process a length that exceeds the size requested by the client. The function does not verify the server-provided length against the allocated buffer size, causing the operation to write past the intended boundaries. This issue allows a malicious server to corrupt adjacent heap memory in the gvfsd-sftp process, resulting in a denial of service as the process aborts upon detecting the heap corruption or potentially allowing arbitrary code execution.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, redhat
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
8.8
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.
Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | CVSS 3.1 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-122
References
3 on the record
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-84268
vdb-entry, x_refsource_REDHAT
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2526485
issue-tracking, x_refsource_REDHAT
- gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gvfs/-/issues/862
reference
Elsewhere on this site
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.