CVE Tools
Track your stack

CVE-2026-84243

gettext: Directory traversal via the LANGUAGE environment variable

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 23rd percentile. No fix published yet.

CVSS 3.17.0HighEPSS percentile23rd0.3% chance in 30 daysCISA KEVNot listedNo confirmed exploitation
No public exploit knownFixNone yetNo fix or workaround published
Check it yourself

No ready-made check. Neither Nuclei nor OpenVAS has one for this CVE yet.

Request a scan

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD

NVD CVE.org

What to do

No fixed build or workaround is published yet. Limit exposure and watch for a patch.

  • The GNU C Library glibcAffected: 2.0Upgrade to: not statedStated by: CVE record

Versions as the sources state them. Full version matrix after sign-in

Is your organisation exposed?Request an assessment to establish which checks fit your systems.

What it is

From the CVE record

The gettext family of functions in the GNU C Library version 2.0 and later accept LANGUAGE environment variable entries that contain '/' or that are equal to "..", unless the program is setuid or setgid (AT_SECURE). An attacker who can set LANGUAGE in the environment of a program that uses gettext can make it load a message catalog (.mo file) from an arbitrary location in the file system. A crafted .mo file can crash the program through out-of-range offsets, or supply translations whose format directives do not match the arguments passed by the program. That causes undefined behaviour in the printf family of functions and may allow arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the program. The safety of message catalogs relies on them being installed in trusted, read-only locations, and the directory traversal bypasses this. The fix for CVE-2014-0475 rejects ".." path components in locale names passed to setlocale or taken from the LC_ALL, LC_* and LANG environment variables. gettext reads LANGUAGE directly and appends each colon-separated entry to the message catalog directory, so that fix did not cover LANGUAGE. LANGUAGE is only used when the LC_MESSAGES locale is not "C", "C.<encoding>" or "POSIX", so the attacker must also be able to select another installed locale, for example through LANG or LC_ALL. Exploitation also requires that the attacker can place the crafted file in a location readable by the target program, and that the environment crosses a trust boundary without the program running as AT_SECURE. An example is an SSH server that accepts LANGUAGE and LANG from clients through the AcceptEnv directive and restricts an account to a forced command; the attacker may use this to escape the restriction.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS23rd
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.3% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 23rd percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

6 events over 1 day, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Record updated
  2. Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped, record updated, record updated

Affected products

Technical detail

CVSS 3.1 vector

Open in the CVSS calculator

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Scored 7.0 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector LocalRequires local access to the vulnerable system (e.g. local login, malicious file)
  • Attack Complexity HighRequires specific conditions like a race condition or non-default configuration
  • Privileges Required LowRequires basic user-level privileges
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
  • Integrity HighTotal loss of integrity — attacker can modify any data in the component
  • Availability HighTotal denial of service — the component is completely unavailable

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

References in the record

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Glibc, not every advisory.