CVE-2026-42484
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 heap-based buffer overflow in hex_to_binary in the PKZIP hash parser in hashcat v7.1.2 allows an attacker to cause a denial of service or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted PKZIP hash file. The issue affects modules 17200, 17210, 17220, 17225, and 17230. When data_type_enum<=1, attacker-controlled hex data from a user-supplied hash string is decoded into a fixed-size buffer without proper input-length validation.
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 · high confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow in hashcat's PKZIP hash parser where the hex_to_binary function decodes attacker-controlled hex data from a user-supplied hash string into a fixed-size buffer without validating input length. When data_type_enum<=1, the overflow occurs, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution or denial of service. Affected modules are 17200, 17210, 17220, 17225, and 17230.
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= 7.1.2CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Verify hashcat versionRun 'hashcat --version' to determine the installed versionAffected if Installed version equals 7.1.2 exactly
-
Confirm affected module is in useReview command history or scripts for hashcat invocations using module IDs 17200, 17210, 17220, 17225, or 17230Affected if Any of these modules (17200-17230) were used to process a hash file
-
Identify PKZIP hash input sourceExamine the hash file or input being processed with the affected module - look for hex-encoded PKZIP dataAffected if The hash input contains hex-encoded PKZIP data being parsed by the vulnerable function
-
Check for user-supplied hash stringsReview hashcat command line arguments for directly-provided hash strings (not from file) where data_type_enum<=1Affected if Hex data from user input is being passed directly without length validation
You are affected if running hashcat version 7.1.2 and processing PKZIP hashes (modules 17200-17230) with attacker-controlled hex-encoded data.
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.
From vendor dataUpgrade to hashcat version containing the patched hex_to_binary function with proper input-length validation before hex-to-binary decoding. Until patched, avoid processing untrusted PKZIP hash files.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42484 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-42484 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