CVE-2026-3479
DISPUTED: The project has clarified that the documentation was incorrect, and that pkgutil.get_data() has the same security model as open().
Published Mar 18, 2026 · updated Jun 17, 2026
DISPUTED: The project has clarified that the documentation was incorrect, and that pkgutil.get_data() has the same security model as open(). The documentation has been updated to clarify this point. There is no vulnerability in the function if following the intended security model. pkgutil.get_data() did not validate the resource argument as documented, allowing path traversals.
Code
The project this record applies to. Exploit listings stay in References.
Timeline
Detection, updates, and resolution for this record.
Mar 18, 2026 · NIST NVD
Detected
DISPUTED: The project has clarified that the documentation was incorrect, and that pkgutil.get_data() has the same security model as open(). The documentation has been updated to clarify this point. There is no vulnerability in the function if following the intended security model. pkgutil.get_data() did not validate the resource argument as documented, allowing path traversals.
Jun 17, 2026 · NIST NVD
Updated
DISPUTED: The project has clarified that the documentation was incorrect, and that pkgutil.get_data() has the same security model as open(). The documentation has been updated to clarify this point. There is no vulnerability in the function if following the intended security model. pkgutil.get_data() did not validate the resource argument as documented, allowing path traversals.
Sources
- CVE.orgVulnerability recordCVE-2026-3479
Official CVE identifier
cve.org - NIST NVDVulnerability recordCVE-2026-3479
DISPUTED: The project has clarified that the documentation was incorrect, and that pkgutil.get_data() has the same security model as open(). The documentation has been updated to clarify this point. There is no vulnerability in the function if following the intended security mode
nvd.nist.gov