Openshift Container PlatformApplication · Redhat
CVE-2026-6843
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 nano. A local user could exploit a format string vulnerability in the `statusline()` function. By creating a directory with a name containing `printf` specifiers, the application attempts to display this name, leading to a segmentation fault (SEGV). This results in a Denial of Service (DoS) for the `nano` application.
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 format string vulnerability exists in nano's statusline() function. When nano displays a directory name containing printf format specifiers (e.g., %s, %d), the unsanitized string is passed to a printf-style function, causing a segmentation fault and denial of service.
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
Openshift Container PlatformApplication
= 4.0
Enterprise LinuxOperating system
= 6.0= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0= 10.0= 8.7CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check installed nano versionRun `nano --version` or `rpm -q nano` to determine the installed version of nanoAffected if The installed version is 8.7 or if the version matches any of the affected RHEL versions (6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0) or OCP 4.0
-
Locate directories with printf specifiers in namesSearch the filesystem for directory names containing printf format specifiers: `find / -type d -name '*%*' 2>/dev/null` or focus on common paths like /home, /var, /tmpAffected if Any directory name contains %s, %d, %x, %c, or other printf format specifier patterns
-
Verify nano is used to navigate directoriesConfirm that nano's file browser or statusline feature is used to display directory paths - this occurs when opening nano without a file argument or using nano's internal file browserAffected if Users navigate directories using nano's built-in file browser or when nano displays the current directory path in its statusline
-
Test for crash conditionCreate a test directory with a printf specifier name (e.g., `mkdir '%s'`) and attempt to navigate to it using nano's file browser, or check system logs for recent segfaults involving nanoAffected if Nano crashes with a segmentation fault when viewing or navigating to a directory containing printf format specifiers in its name
A user is affected if they have nano version 8.7, RHEL 6.0-10.0, or OCP 4.0 installed AND have directories with printf format specifier characters in their filesystem that nano displays in its statusline.
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 dataAvoid creating or navigating to directories with printf specifier characters in their names until a patch is applied to properly sanitize directory names in the statusline() function.
Fix this in Openshift Container Platform
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6843 — 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-2026-6843 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