VulnerabilityPublished 14 Oct 2024Updated 16 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-41997: warp · Code Injection

Affects warpSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.6 Medium : upgrade to 2024.07.18 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.6Medium

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

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 67% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2024.07.18

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

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

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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Oct 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

Upgrade warpdotdev/warp to 2024.07.18.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubwarpdotdev/warp`pkg:github/warpdotdev/warp`Other threats	Affected <2024.07.18	Fixed in 2024.07.18

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade Warp Terminal to version 2024.07.18 or later, where the issue has been addressed. Until an upgrade is possible, users should be educated to avoid clicking on untrusted warp:// links, especially those purporting to open Docker subshells. Administrators can consider disabling or restricting the use of custom URI handlers related to Warp Terminal if feasible. Network-level protections such as email filtering and web gateway controls should be enhanced to detect and block phishing attempts containing malicious warp:// links. Endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions can be tuned to monitor for suspicious command execution originating from Warp Terminal processes. Additionally, applying the principle of least privilege to user accounts can limit the potential damage from exploitation. Regular security awareness training emphasizing the risks of clicking unknown links is critical. Monitoring logs for unusual Docker subshell invocations may help detect attempted exploitation. Finally, organizations should maintain an inventory of Warp Terminal installations and Docker usage to prioritize patching and mitigation efforts.

Description

An issue was discovered in version of Warp Terminal prior to 2024.07.18 (v0.2024.07.16.08.02). A command injection vulnerability exists in the Docker integration functionality. An attacker can create a specially crafted hyperlink using the `warp://action/docker/open_subshell` intent that when clicked by the victim results in command execution on the victim's machine.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized command execution on the victim's machine, which can lead to exposure of sensitive data (confidentiality impact) and potentially limited disruption of system operations (availability impact). Since the attack vector requires a user to click a malicious link, social engineering is a key factor. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the logged-in user, potentially leading to data theft, lateral movement, or persistence within an organization’s environment. The integrity impact is limited because the attacker’s ability to modify system state depends on the commands executed and user privileges. Organizations using Warp Terminal with Docker integration are at risk, especially if users are targeted with phishing or malicious links. The vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against developers, DevOps engineers, or system administrators who frequently use Warp Terminal. Given the medium severity and lack of known exploits, the immediate risk is moderate but could escalate if exploit code becomes available. The impact is more pronounced in environments with high Docker usage and where Warp Terminal is a standard tool.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (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 26 Feb 2026, 07:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats