CVE-2026-84243

HIGHPre-NVD 7.07.0
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.0 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-10-30. A secondary CVSS source baseline 7.0; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source

Also known asEUVD-2026-114247 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-8rvm-662m-jvqv (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.0EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 7.0Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

The gettext family of functions in the GNU C Library version 2.0 and later accept LANGUAGE environment variable entries that contain '/' or that are equal to "..", unless the program is setuid or setgid (AT_SECURE). An attacker who can set LANGUAGE in the environment of a program that uses gettext can make it load a message catalog (.mo file) from an arbitrary location in the file system. A crafted .mo file can crash the program through out-of-range offsets, or supply translations whose format directives do not match the arguments passed by the program. That causes undefined behaviour in the printf family of functions and may allow arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the program. The safety of message catalogs relies on them being installed in trusted, read-only locations, and the directory traversal bypasses this.

The fix for CVE-2014-0475 rejects ".." path components in locale names passed to setlocale or taken from the LC_ALL, LC_* and LANG environment variables. gettext reads LANGUAGE directly and appends each colon-separated entry to the message catalog directory, so that fix did not cover LANGUAGE.

LANGUAGE is only used when the LC_MESSAGES locale is not "C", "C." or "POSIX", so the attacker must also be able to select another installed locale, for example through LANG or LC_ALL. Exploitation also requires that the attacker can place the crafted file in a location readable by the target program, and that the environment crosses a trust boundary without the program running as AT_SECURE. An example is an SSH server that accepts LANGUAGE and LANG from clients through the AcceptEnv directive and restricts an account to a forced command; the attacker may use this to escape the restriction.

CVSS v3
7.0
EG Score
7.0HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
32
EG Risk 32/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity70% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.0 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.3% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
22nd
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.0 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-06). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 30, 2026

Last Modified

October 31, 2026

Advisory Details (3)

Auto-updated Oct 30, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

[PATCH v7] intl: Restrict path traversal when using LANGUAGE env var [BZ #17142, CVE-2026-84243] - Avinal Kumar

https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/[email protected]
Web page

17142 – (CVE-2026-84243) LANGUAGE environment variable processing and directory traversal

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17142

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-84243(2)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(3 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
glibc2.36-10~0 ... 2.44-3 (136 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
glibc2.41-12 ... 2.44-3 (42 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
glibc2.41-12 ... 2.44-3 (38 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 22× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  2. 2026-11-11 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  3. 2026-11-10 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  4. 2026-11-09 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  5. 2026-11-08 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  6. 2026-11-07 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  7. 2026-11-06 18:51 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  8. 2026-11-06 18:51 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-11-06 18:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8rvm-662m-jvqv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  10. 2026-11-06 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  11. 2026-11-05 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  12. 2026-11-04 16:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  13. 2026-11-03 16:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  14. 2026-11-02 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  15. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  16. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  17. 2026-10-31 04:26 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  18. 2026-10-31 04:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8rvm-662m-jvqv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  19. 2026-10-31 03:59 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  20. 2026-10-31 03:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8rvm-662m-jvqv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  21. 2026-10-30 20:26 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  22. 2026-10-30 20:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8rvm-662m-jvqv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  23. 2026-10-30 20:14 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  24. 2026-10-30 20:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8rvm-662m-jvqv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  25. 2026-10-30 19:47 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
Show 5 more
  1. 2026-10-30 19:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8rvm-662m-jvqv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  2. 2026-10-30 19:02 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-114247 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  3. 2026-10-30 18:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  4. 2026-10-30 17:45 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 7.0 HIGH
  5. 2026-10-30 17:44 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-84243?
CVE-2026-84243 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 30, 2026. The gettext family of functions in the GNU C Library version 2.0 and later accept LANGUAGE environment variable entries that contain '/' or that are equal to "..", unless the program is setuid or setgid (AT_SECURE). An attacker who can set LANGUAGE in the environment of a program that uses gettext…
When was CVE-2026-84243 made public?
CVE-2026-84243 was made public on July 11, 2014: that is the date its CVE record's CNA, GNU C Library, gives for when the vulnerability was made public. The CVE record itself was published on October 30, 2026. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 31, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-84243 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-84243 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (22nd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-84243?
CVE-2026-84243 has a CVSS base score of 7.0 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-84243?
A fix for CVE-2026-84243 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-84243 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-84243

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-84243?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.