- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- Fixed in 0.2.7
- Who is exposed
- Not reported
Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.2.7.
- Last modified
- Whether it needs action now or is a reference record, by fixed rules, with why. Last checked is when cve.now last re-read it.What do these mean? →
- Reference
- Last checked
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 10/100 · provisional
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
Summary
The eazip package does not properly validate symlink targets when extracting archives, so a crafted archive can create symlinks that point outside the extraction directory and redirect writes to arbitrary filesystem locations. Applications that extract untrusted archives with eazip on Windows are affected, while exposure on Unix targets is more limited.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
Read the original description
When extracting archives, eazip validates symlink entries before writing them. The validation function validate_symlink() (src/utils/mod.rs) scans for backslash and NUL bytes, but passes the symlink's *name* where the symlink's *target* was intended:
memchr2(b'\\', b'\0', name.as_bytes()) // should be target.as_bytes()As a result, symlink *targets* containing backslash or NUL bytes pass validation. On Windows, backslash is a path separator, so targets such as ..\..\..\Windows\system32\evil.exe also defeat the remaining depth check, which splits on / only. A crafted archive can therefore create symlinks that resolve outside the extraction directory — including UNC targets such as \\host\share\... — redirecting writes to arbitrary filesystem locations chosen by the attacker.
Applications that extract untrusted archives with eazip on Windows targets are affected; on Unix targets backslash is not a separator, which limits exposure there.
The vulnerability was introduced in version 0.2.5 and fixed in 0.2.7 (a1phyr/eazip@0e4caa13), which rejects backslash and NUL bytes in the symlink target. It was privately reported to the maintainer on 2026-11-06 and credited in the 0.2.7 release notes.
cve.now Index
- Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
- Exposure?/25Unknown. No advisory context yet
- Reach10/20Affects crates.io packages
- Severity?/10Unknown. No CVSS score or vendor rating
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 65 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 60 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
- Would score about 32 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed
What to do
Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.2.7.
Check your systems with an agent
Paste this into a coding or ops agent. It checks your systems read-only and reports a table per asset.
Check whether my systems are affected by RUSTSEC-2026-0503 (eazip: symlink-target validation checks the wrong argument, allowing extraction path escapes on Windows), using the cve.now data below.
Rules: work read-only. Do not run exploit code, proof-of-concept scripts or scanners that send attack payloads, and do not change any configuration, package, image or deployment. Report findings only.
What cve.now has for RUSTSEC-2026-0503 (entry last updated 2026-11-12):
Affected:
- crates.io package eazip: from 0.2.5, fixed in 0.2.7
Fixed versions: 0.2.7.
Setup: unknown whether the bug needs a non-default feature or setting. Check the advisory.
CISA KEV: RUSTSEC-2026-0503 is not listed as of cve.now's last read.
This KEV status is for RUSTSEC-2026-0503 only. If you also check another CVE, look up its own KEV status; never assume it from this one.
How to check:
- Packages (crates.io): find every lockfile in each project and run the stack.check operation of the cve.now MCP server (execute) on each one. Compare the resolved versions, not the ranges a manifest declares, with the affected versions above. Include transitive dependencies.
Verify against the linked advisories before concluding, and cite the date you read each one:
- https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0503.html
- https://crates.io/crates/eazip
- https://github.com/a1phyr/eazip/releases/tag/v0.2.7
Do not conclude an asset is unaffected unless you checked it and the evidence covers both its version and the conditions above. If you could not check something, mark it unknown and say what is missing.
Report a table with one row per asset and these columns: Asset | Version or build | Status (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | Compensating controls | Exposure (internet-facing, internal, none) | Evidence | Next action.
Entry: https://cve.now/RUSTSEC-2026-0503
For follow-up questions, use the cve.now MCP server at https://mcp.cve.now/mcp (no authentication), for example execute with name cve.get and arguments {"id": "RUSTSEC-2026-0503"}.Timeline
- Advisory published5 days
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- eazipcrates.io
From 0.2.5 · fixed in 0.2.7
Evidence 3
Other links · 3
- Advisory
- Repository
- Link
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about RUSTSEC-2026-0503
Is RUSTSEC-2026-0503 being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
Which versions are affected by RUSTSEC-2026-0503?
eazip (crates.io): from 0.2.5 before 0.2.7.Source: cve.now feed data
How do I fix RUSTSEC-2026-0503?
Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.2.7.Source: cve.now feed data