CVE-2026-44068
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 · uneditedIncomplete sanitization of extended attribute (EA) path components in Netatalk 2.1.0 through 4.4.2 allows a remote authenticated attacker to write to files outside the intended metadata namespace via crafted EA names.
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 confidenceNetatalk versions 2.1.0 through 4.4.2 contain an incomplete sanitization vulnerability in extended attribute (EA) path component handling. A remote authenticated attacker can craft malicious EA names to escape the intended metadata namespace and write to files outside the designated directory, enabling arbitrary file write access.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L
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 'which afpd' or 'dpkg -l | grep -i netatalk' (Debian/Ubuntu) or 'rpm -qa | grep -i netatalk' (RHEL/CentOS) to locate the afpd binary and related Netatalk componentsAffected if Netatalk binaries (afpd, cnid_metad) are found on the system
-
Determine installed Netatalk versionRun 'afpd -V' or 'netatalk -V' to display the version numberAffected if The displayed version falls within the range 2.1.0 through 4.4.2 (inclusive)
-
Check if AFP service is enabledInspect the Netatalk configuration file (typically /etc/netatalk/afp.conf) and check if the AFP service is actively configured and not commented outAffected if The AFP service is enabled and configured in afp.conf
-
Verify extended attribute handling is in useReview afp.conf for 'ea' settings (such as 'ea = ad' or 'ea = none') and check if any share paths have EA support explicitly enabledAffected if Extended attribute support (ea) is set to a value other than 'none', meaning EA handling is active for some shares
-
Assess AFP authentication exposureReview afp.conf for authentication settings: check for 'guest account', 'allow' or 'deny' directives, and verify which user accounts have AFP accessAffected if AFP service accepts authentication from untrusted users, or guest access is permitted, or authentication is not restricted to specific trusted users only
You are affected if Netatalk version 2.1.0 to 4.4.2 is installed, the AFP service is enabled, extended attributes are in use, and the AFP service is accessible to untrusted authenticated users who could craft malicious EA names.
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 dataUpdate Netatalk to the latest patched version. If no patch is available, restrict authenticated network access to the Netatalk service and monitor for suspicious EA name patterns.
- Consultation4.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44068 — 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-2026-44068 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