CVE-2026-44049
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 · uneditedAn out-of-bounds write due to improper null termination in convert_charset() in Netatalk 2.0.4 through 4.4.2 allows a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service via crafted character data.
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 confidenceAn out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in Netatalk's convert_charset() function due to improper null termination. The flaw allows a remote authenticated attacker to send crafted character data that writes beyond buffer boundaries, potentially achieving arbitrary code execution or causing a denial of service.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm Netatalk is installedRun 'netatalk -V' or 'afpd -V' to display the version, or check for the presence of netatalk binaries in /usr/sbin/ (e.g., ls -la /usr/sbin/afpd)Affected if Netatalk is found and running on the system
-
Identify the exact installed versionExecute 'netatalk -V' and note the full version number (e.g., netatalk 3.1.12), or check the package manager: 'dpkg -l | grep netatalk' (Debian) or 'rpm -qa | grep netatalk' (RHEL)Affected if The version falls within 2.0.4 through 4.4.2 (inclusive)
-
Verify the AFP service is accessibleCheck if the afpd daemon is running: 'ps aux | grep afpd' or check the configuration file /etc/netatalk/afp.conf for active shares and listening addressesAffected if afpd is running and bound to a network interface (not localhost-only)
-
Confirm authentication is enabledReview /etc/netatalk/afp.conf for user authentication settings (look for 'auth required' or similar directives), and check if guest access or user accounts are configuredAffected if Authentication is enabled allowing remote users to connect
-
Check if charset conversion is in useInspect /etc/netatalk/afp.conf or /etc/netatalk/AppleVolumes.default for charset-related parameters (e.g., 'maccodepage', 'vol codepage', 'unix charset' settings)Affected if Character set conversion settings are configured for shared volumes
The system is affected if Netatalk versions 2.0.4 through 4.4.2 are installed with the AFP service running and accessible over the network, enabling a remote authenticated attacker to exploit the convert_charset() function.
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 Netatalk to the latest version beyond 4.4.2 which contains the patched fix. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict network access to AFP services and verify authentication mechanisms are properly configured.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44049 — 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-2026-44049 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