CVE-2026-1933
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA flaw was found in Samba’s handling of NTFS-style reparse points on shares configured with read only = yes. Due to missing SMB-layer access checks, authenticated users with underlying filesystem write permissions may create or delete reparse point metadata through SMB operations even on read-only exports. This could allow modification of SMB-visible file behavior, including converting files into symbolic links or other reparse point types.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceA flaw in Samba's SMB-layer allows authenticated users with underlying filesystem write permissions to create or delete NTFS-style reparse point metadata on shares configured with 'read only = yes', bypassing the intended read-only restriction. This can enable modification of SMB-visible file behavior, including converting regular files into symbolic links or other reparse point types.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 4.0= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0= 10.0>= 4.1.0, < 4.2.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Samba versionRun 'smbd --version' or 'rpm -q samba' to determine the Samba version installed on the systemAffected if The installed version is >= 4.1.0 and < 4.2.2
-
Locate Samba share configurations with read-only restrictionReview smb.conf files (typically in /etc/samba/smb.conf) and identify shares configured with 'read only = yes' or 'readonly = yes'Affected if There are shares configured with read only = yes that expose filesystem paths where users have underlying write permissions
-
Verify underlying filesystem permissions on share pathsCheck filesystem permissions on the directory paths used by read-only shares using 'ls -la' and verify which authenticated users have write access to those directoriesAffected if Authenticated users have write permissions to directories underlying read-only SMB shares, enabling them to create or delete reparse point metadata
-
Detect existing reparse points on share pathsUse 'getfattr -d -m . <filename>' or 'fsutil reparsepoint query <filename>' on files within the share paths to check for NTFS reparse point metadataAffected if Reparse points exist on files within read-only shares, indicating potential exploitation of this vulnerability
A system is affected if Samba version 4.1.0 through 4.2.1 is in use and there are SMB shares configured as read-only where authenticated users have underlying filesystem write access to create or manipulate reparse points.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped4.2.2
Apply Samba security updates when available and review share configurations to ensure proper access controls are enforced at the SMB layer for reparse point operations.
Samba 4.2.2 or later (or the latest available samba package in your distribution's security repositories)
- Identify the Samba version currently installed using: rpm -qa | grep samba or smbd --version
- For RHEL/CentOS systems: Run 'yum update samba' or 'dnf update samba' to apply available security updates
- For RHEL 7.x systems: Upgrade to samba-4.2.2 or later from the Red Hat Enterprise Linux repositories
- For RHEL 8.x/9.x systems: Ensure samba-4.2.2 or later is installed via 'dnf install samba' after updating
- Restart SMB services after upgrade: 'systemctl restart smb' or 'systemctl restart smbd'
- Verify the fixed version is running: 'smbd --version'
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-1933 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sources- bugzilla.samba.org
- access.redhat.com
- bugzilla.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- security.access.redhat.com
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-1933 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data