VulnerabilityPublished 18 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-24126: WeblateOrg weblate · Argument Injection

Affects WeblateOrg weblateSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.6 Medium : upgrade to 5.16.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.16.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 18 Feb 2026
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 WeblateOrg weblate to 5.16.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
WeblateOrgweblate	Affected <5.16.0	Fixed in 5.16.0

AI-suggested

Upgrade Weblate installations to version 5.16.0 or later immediately to apply the official patch that properly validates input to the ssh-add command.
Restrict access to the SSH management console strictly to trusted administrators using network segmentation, VPNs, or zero-trust access controls.
Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all administrative accounts to reduce the risk of credential compromise.
Monitor logs and audit trails related to SSH key additions and management for unusual or unauthorized activities.
Employ host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to detect anomalous ssh-add command executions.
Review and minimize the number of administrators with access to the management console to reduce the attack surface.
Conduct regular security training for administrators on secure key management practices.
Consider isolating the Weblate management console in a hardened environment with limited network exposure.
If patching is delayed, implement strict firewall rules and access control lists (ACLs) to limit network access to the management console.
Regularly back up Weblate configurations and SSH keys to enable rapid recovery in case of compromise.

Description

Weblate is a web based localization tool. Prior to 5.16.0, the SSH management console did not validate the passed input while adding the SSH host key, which could lead to an argument injection to `ssh-add`. Version 5.16.0 fixes the issue. As a workaround, properly limit access to the management console.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be substantial, especially for those relying on Weblate for localization and translation management integrated with SSH-based workflows. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized command execution via ssh-add, potentially compromising the confidentiality of SSH keys, integrity of the localization environment, and availability of translation services. This could disrupt software development pipelines, delay product releases, and expose sensitive intellectual property or credentials. Organizations with complex localization needs or those managing multiple projects with SSH key dependencies are at higher risk. The medium severity rating indicates a moderate but non-trivial risk, emphasizing the need for timely remediation to prevent lateral movement or privilege escalation within internal networks. Given the vulnerability requires high privileges, insider threats or compromised administrator accounts pose the greatest risk. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate urgency but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits over time.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
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
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter 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 18 Feb 2026, 23:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats