VulnerabilityPublished 3 May 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-40477: RARLAB WinRAR · Improper Validation of Array Index

Affects RARLAB WinRARSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · 11% EPSS · CVSS 7.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 11.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 95% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 May 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RARLAB WinRAR	Affected =6.21	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately verify if WinRAR version 6.21 is in use and prioritize upgrading to a patched version once available from RARLAB. Until a patch is released, implement strict controls on the handling of archive files, including blocking or sandboxing recovery volumes from untrusted sources. Employ endpoint protection solutions capable of detecting suspicious behavior related to archive processing. Educate users about the risks of opening unsolicited or unexpected archive files, especially those containing recovery volumes. Network-level defenses such as email filtering and web content filtering should be enhanced to block malicious archives and URLs. Consider disabling or restricting the use of recovery volumes in WinRAR settings if feasible. Monitor systems for unusual WinRAR process activity or crashes that could indicate exploitation attempts. Finally, maintain robust incident response plans to quickly contain and remediate any compromise stemming from this vulnerability.

Description

RARLAB WinRAR Recovery Volume Improper Validation of Array Index Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of RARLAB WinRAR. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the processing of recovery volumes. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in a memory access past the end of an allocated buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-21233.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk due to the widespread use of WinRAR for file compression and decompression tasks across various sectors including government, finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution, enabling attackers to install malware, steal sensitive data, disrupt operations, or move laterally within networks. The requirement for user interaction means phishing or social engineering campaigns could be used to deliver malicious archives. Given the high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact, organizations could face data breaches, ransomware attacks, or operational downtime. The threat is particularly acute for entities that rely on WinRAR for automated or manual processing of recovery volumes, as these are the vulnerable components. Without timely patching or mitigation, attackers could exploit this vulnerability to compromise endpoints and potentially escalate privileges or gain persistent access.

CWE-129Improper Validation of Array Index (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 20:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-129

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats