VulnerabilityPublished 22 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-35339: Uutils coreutils · Incorrect Check of Function Return Value

Affects Uutils coreutilsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 0.6.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.6.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Upgrade Uutils coreutils to 0.6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Uutilscoreutils	Affected <0.6.0	Fixed in 0.6.0
GitHubuutils/coreutils`pkg:github/uutils/coreutils`Other threats	Affected =0	Fixed in–
GitHubcoreutils`pkg:github/coreutils`Other threats	Affected <0.6.0	Fixed in 0.6.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, users should manually verify permissions after recursive chmod operations or avoid relying solely on exit codes for success confirmation.

Description

The chmod utility in uutils coreutils has a vulnerability in its recursive mode (-R) where it incorrectly reports success by only considering the exit code of the last file processed. This can cause scripts relying on exit codes to mistakenly believe all files were processed successfully, even if earlier files encountered errors such as 'Operation not permitted'. This may lead to sensitive files retaining incorrect permissions.

Impact

Scripts and automation relying on chmod's exit code to verify successful permission changes may proceed under a false assumption of success. This can result in sensitive files retaining restrictive or incorrect permissions, potentially causing security or operational issues. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or availability directly but impacts integrity by misreporting the success of permission changes.

Summary

CVE-2026-35339 describes a flaw in the recursive mode (-R) of the chmod utility within uutils coreutils. The utility determines its final exit code based solely on the last file processed, ignoring errors encountered on previous files. This incorrect check of function return values (CWE-253) can cause the command to return a success exit code (0) despite failures on some files, potentially misleading automated scripts or processes that depend on accurate exit status for permission changes.

CWE-253Incorrect Check of Function Return Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Low
The product incorrectly checks a return value from a function, which prevents it from detecting errors or exceptional conditions.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language or compiler that uses exceptions and requires the catching of those exceptions.
Implementation
Properly check all functions which return a value.
Implementation
When designing any function make sure you return a value or throw an exception in case of an error.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (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 6 Jul 2026, 23:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-253

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats