CVE-2026-26189VulnerabilityPublished 19 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26189: aquasecurity trivy-action · OS Command Injection

Affects aquasecurity trivy-actionSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 0.34.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 1.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 74% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.34.0

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

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

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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 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 2026-10-26.

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 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 aquasecurity trivy-action to 0.34.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
aquasecuritytrivy-action	Affected >=0.31.0 <0.34.0	Fixed in 0.34.0

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade aquasecurity/trivy-action to version 0.34.0 or later, which contains the patch that properly escapes shell inputs or removes the vulnerable sourcing mechanism. Organizations should audit all GitHub workflows using trivy-action to identify if any user-controlled or untrusted inputs are passed to the action inputs that are written to `trivy_envs.txt`. Restrict permissions on who can modify workflows to prevent unauthorized injection of malicious inputs. Avoid passing untrusted data into action inputs that influence environment variables or shell commands. Consider implementing additional runtime protections such as GitHub Actions runner isolation and secrets scanning. Review and harden CI/CD pipeline security policies to minimize exposure to supply chain threats. Monitoring for unusual runner activity and logs can help detect exploitation attempts. Finally, educate developers and DevOps teams about secure usage of GitHub Actions and environment variable handling.

Description

Trivy Action runs Trivy as GitHub action to scan a Docker container image for vulnerabilities. A command injection vulnerability exists in `aquasecurity/trivy-action` versions 0.31.0 through 0.33.1 due to improper handling of action inputs when exporting environment variables. The action writes `export VAR=<input>` lines to `trivy_envs.txt` based on user-supplied inputs and subsequently sources this file in `entrypoint.sh`. Because input values are written without appropriate shell escaping, attacker-controlled input containing shell metacharacters (e.g., `$(...)`, backticks, or other command substitution syntax) may be evaluated during the sourcing process. This can result in arbitrary command execution within the GitHub Actions runner context. Version 0.34.0 contains a patch for this issue. The vulnerability is exploitable when a consuming workflow passes attacker-controlled data into any action input that is written to `trivy_envs.txt`. Access to user input is required by the malicious actor. Workflows that do not pass attacker-controlled data into `trivy-action` inputs, workflows that upgrade to a patched version that properly escapes shell values or eliminates the `source ./trivy_envs.txt` pattern, and workflows where user input is not accessible are not affected.

Impact

If exploited, this vulnerability allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands within the GitHub Actions runner environment. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification of build artifacts, injection of malicious code into software supply chains, and potential lateral movement if the runner has network access to internal resources. Since GitHub Actions runners often have access to source code repositories, secrets, and deployment credentials, the confidentiality and integrity of the software development lifecycle can be severely compromised. Organizations relying on trivy-action in their CI/CD pipelines may face risks of supply chain attacks, data breaches, and disruption of automated security scanning processes. The impact is particularly critical for organizations with complex workflows that incorporate user inputs or third-party data into trivy-action inputs. However, the requirement for attacker-controlled input and the need for high privileges to modify workflows somewhat limit the exploitability scope.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command 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 19 Feb 2026, 22:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats