OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2026-44076

MEDIUM · 6.7 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
69/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click

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 · unedited
Insufficient sanitization of volume paths in Netatalk 3.1.0 through 4.4.2 allows a local privileged user to inject OS commands and execute arbitrary code via a crafted volume path.

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 confidence

Command injection vulnerability in Netatalk's volume path handling allows a local privileged user to inject OS commands via crafted volume paths, leading to arbitrary code execution. The issue stems from insufficient sanitization of user-supplied volume path data in Netatalk versions 3.1.0 through 4.4.2.

MitigationUpgrade Netatalk to version 4.4.3 or later which contains the patched code that properly sanitizes volume paths before processing.

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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Netatalk is installed
    Check for the presence of the Netatalk daemon by looking for the 'afpd' process or netatalk binary (e.g., run 'ps aux | grep afpd' or check for /usr/sbin/afpd)
    Affected if Netatalk is running or the binary exists on the system
  2. Determine installed Netatalk version
    Run 'netatalk -V' or 'afpd -V' to retrieve the version number, then compare against the affected range 3.1.0 to 4.4.2
    Affected if The installed version falls within 3.1.0 through 4.4.2 (inclusive)
  3. Locate Netatalk volume configuration
    Find the configuration file defining volumes - common locations are /etc/netatalk/afp.conf or files under /etc/netatalk/AppleVolumes, check the 'volume' or 'path' directives
    Affected if Volume configurations exist and define custom volume paths
  4. Check configuration file permissions
    List permissions on the volume configuration files (e.g., 'ls -la /etc/netatalk/afp.conf') to determine if unprivileged users can write to them
    Affected if Configuration files are writable by users other than root or the netatalk administrator

The system is affected if Netatalk is installed with a version between 3.1.0 and 4.4.2 and volume configurations exist with permissions allowing modification by untrusted users.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade Netatalk to version 4.4.3 or later which contains the patched code that properly sanitizes volume paths before processing.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

Upgrade to a Netatalk version newer than 4.4.2 (e.g., latest stable 4.x release)

  1. 1. Identify the currently installed Netatalk version using 'netatalk -V' or checking the package manager
  2. 2. Plan maintenance window as upgrade may require service restart
  3. 3. Backup current configuration files in /etc/netatalk/
  4. 4. Stop the Netatalk service: 'systemctl stop netatalk' or 'service netatalk stop'
  5. 5. Upgrade Netatalk package via package manager (e.g., 'apt update && apt upgrade netatalk' or 'yum update netatalk')
  6. 6. Verify the new version is greater than 4.4.2
  7. 7. Restart Netatalk service: 'systemctl start netatalk' or 'service netatalk start'
  8. 8. Review volume configurations to ensure no unsafe character sequences remain in volume path definitions
Caveat Review release notes for configuration changes between 4.4.x and newer versions; test AFP client connectivity after upgrade

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44076 — 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

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-44076 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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