Gradle is a build tool with a focus on build automation and support for multi-language development. In affected versions when unpacking Tar archives, Gradle did not check that files could be written outside of the unpack location. This could lead to important files being overwritten anywhere the Gradle process has write permissions. For a build reading Tar entries from a Tar archive, this issue could allow Gradle to disclose information from sensitive files through an arbitrary file read. To exploit this behavior, an attacker needs to either control the source of an archive already used by the build or modify the build to interact with a malicious archive. It is unlikely that this would go unnoticed. A fix has been released in Gradle 7.6.2 and 8.2 to protect against this vulnerability. Starting from these versions, Gradle will refuse to handle Tar archives which contain path traversal elements in a Tar entry name. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
Impact
This is a path traversal vulnerability when Gradle deals with Tar archives, often referenced as TarSlip, a variant of ZipSlip.
* When unpacking Tar archives, Gradle did not check that files could be written outside of the unpack location. This could lead to important files being overwritten anywhere the Gradle process has write permissions.
* For a build reading Tar entries from a Tar archive, this issue could allow Gradle to disclose information from sensitive files through an arbitrary file read.
To exploit this behavior, an attacker needs to either control the source of an archive already used by the build or modify the build to interact with a malicious archive. It is unlikely that this would go unnoticed.
Gradle uses Tar archives for its Build Cache. These archives are safe when created by Gradle. But if an attacker had control of a remote build cache server, they could inject malicious build cache entries that leverage this vulnerability. This attack vector could also be exploited if a man-in-the-middle can be performed between the remote cache and the build.
Patches
A fix has been released in Gradle 7.6.2 and 8.2 to protect against this vulnerability. Starting from these versions, Gradle will refuse to handle Tar archives which contain path traversal elements in a Tar entry name.
It is recommended that users upgrade to a patched version.
Workarounds
There is no workaround.
* If your build deals with Tar archives that you do not fully trust, you need to inspect them to confirm they do not attempt to leverage this vulnerability.
* If you use the Gradle remote build cache, make sure only trusted parties have write access to it and that connections to the remote cache are properly secured.
References
* CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
* Gradle Build Cache
* ZipSlip
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.9 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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: 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).
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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