CVE-2026-56445

CRITICAL
Published June 25, 2026

The qrscp application's C-STORE handler uses a specific instance from attacker-supplied DICOM datasets directly in os.path.join() without sanitization, allowing file writes to arbitrary...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
9.1 / 10
EPSS
N/A
Exploitation Status
No known exploitation
Sophistication
N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV AC PR UI S C I A
AV Network
AC Low
PR None
UI None
S Unchanged
C None
I High
A High

What should I do?

No patch available

Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-56445?

The qrscp application's C-STORE handler uses a specific instance from attacker-supplied DICOM datasets directly in os.path.join() without sanitization, allowing file writes to arbitrary paths.

Is CVE-2026-56445 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-56445 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-56445?

No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-56445?

CVE-2026-56445 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.1 (CRITICAL).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

The qrscp application's C-STORE handler uses a specific instance from attacker-supplied DICOM datasets directly in os.path.join() without sanitization, allowing file writes to arbitrary paths.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-22 — Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'): The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

  • [Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
  • [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 entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

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

Timeline

Published
June 25, 2026
Last Modified
June 25, 2026
First Seen
June 25, 2026