Skip to content

CBORDecoder reuse can leak shareable values across decode calls

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Dec 30, 2025 in agronholm/cbor2

Package

cbor2 (pip)

Affected versions

>= 3.0.0, < 5.8.0

Patched versions

5.8.0

Description

Summary

When a CBORDecoder instance is reused across multiple decode operations, values marked with the shareable tag (28) persist in memory and can be accessed by subsequent CBOR messages using the sharedref tag (29). This allows an attacker-controlled message to read data from previously decoded messages if the decoder is reused across trust boundaries.

Details

The issue is in the decoder's handling of the shareables list, which stores values tagged with CBOR tag 28 (shareable) for later reference by tag 29 (sharedref).

When decode_from_bytes() is called or when .fp is set to a new stream, the shareables list is not cleared. This allows references to persist across separate decode operations.

The issue exists in both the C extension and the pure Python decoder.

In the C extension (source/decoder.c), the _CBORDecoder_set_fp function (line ~202) updates the file pointer but does not reset the shareables state:

  static int
  _CBORDecoder_set_fp(CBORDecoderObject *self, PyObject *value, void *closure)
  {
      // ... validation ...
      tmp = self->read;
      self->read = read;
      Py_DECREF(tmp);
      return 0;
      // Missing: PyList_Clear(self->shareables) or equivalent
  }

In the pure Python decoder (cbor2/_decoder.py), the fp setter similarly fails to clear self._shareables.

Similarly, decode_from_bytes() in both implementations saves and restores the read pointer but does not clear the shareables list between decodes.

The shareable/sharedref tags are defined in the CBOR value sharing extension (http://cbor.schmorp.de/value-sharing) with scope limited to a single CBOR data item, not across separate messages.

PoC

import cbor2
from io import BytesIO

# Message from trusted source containing a shareable value
msg1 = cbor2.dumps(cbor2.CBORTag(28, "secret"))

# Attacker-controlled message referencing index 0
msg2 = cbor2.dumps(cbor2.CBORTag(29, 0))

# Decoder reused across trust boundaries
decoder = cbor2.CBORDecoder(BytesIO(b''))
decoder.decode_from_bytes(msg1)
print(decoder.decode_from_bytes(msg2))  # prints "secret"

No special configuration required. Affects any application that reuses a CBORDecoder instance to decode messages from different sources.

Impact

Information disclosure. Applications that reuse a CBORDecoder across trust boundaries are vulnerable if the trusted messages use value sharing (tag 28) and an attacker can send messages containing shared references (tag 29). An attacker who can send a crafted CBOR message containing a sharedref tag can read values from previously decoded messages, potentially exposing sensitive data such as credentials, tokens, or private user data.

Related

A similar issue in the encoder could produce invalid CBOR with dangling shared references:

import cbor2
from io import BytesIO

# Create encoder with value sharing enabled
encoder = cbor2.CBOREncoder(BytesIO(), value_sharing=True)

# Persistent object that will be encoded multiple times
shared_obj = ['hello']

# First encode: array containing shared_obj twice
encoder.encode([shared_obj, shared_obj])
print(f'First encode: {encoder.fp.getvalue().hex()}')
# Output: d81c82d81c816568656c6c6fd81d01

# Second encode: just shared_obj
encoder.fp = BytesIO()
encoder.encode(shared_obj)
result = encoder.fp.getvalue()
print(f'Second encode: {result.hex()}')
# Output: d81d01  (just a shared reference to index 1!)

# Try to decode the second result as standalone CBOR
decoder = cbor2.CBORDecoder(BytesIO(result))
decoded = decoder.decode()
# FAILS: shared reference 1 not found

While primarily a correctness bug, it could cause denial of service if invalid CBOR is transmitted to downstream systems that fail to parse it, or cause silent data corruption if the dangling reference happens to resolve to an unrelated value.

It can also be considered a memory leak in both the decoder and encoder as references are held that will never be released as long as the decoder/encoder remains alive.

Suggested resolution

Add dedicated boolean flags to track when an encode/decode operation is in progress. Reset shared state only when the flag is False (top-level call). This ensures state is reset for standalone calls while preserving shared references for nested calls from hooks (which need access to the registry for cyclic structures).

Decoder (_decoding flag):

  • decode(): set flag True, reset state, decode, set flag False
  • decode_from_bytes(): reset state only when flag is False

Encoder (_encoding flag):

  • encode(): set flag True, reset state, encode, set flag False
  • encode_to_bytes(): reset state only when flag is False

References

@agronholm agronholm published to agronholm/cbor2 Dec 30, 2025
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Dec 31, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Dec 31, 2025
Reviewed Dec 31, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity None
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(13th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer

The product stores, transfers, or shares a resource that contains sensitive information, but it does not properly remove that information before the product makes the resource available to unauthorized actors. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-68131

GHSA ID

GHSA-wcj4-jw5j-44wh

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.