VulnerabilityPublished 27 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30302: OS Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 10.0 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

10.0Critical

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

EPSS: 2.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 81% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Mar 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

AI-suggested

Immediately discontinue use of the vulnerable command auto-approval module in CodeRider-Kilo until a patch or update is available.
Replace the Unix-based shell-quote parser with a Windows CMD-aware command parsing library that correctly handles escape sequences and command delimiters.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization for all commands, explicitly disallowing command chaining characters such as '&' and escape sequences that can alter command flow.
Employ application whitelisting at the OS level to restrict execution of unauthorized binaries and scripts.
Monitor logs for suspicious command patterns indicative of injection attempts, such as unusual use of escape characters or command separators.
Conduct thorough code reviews and security testing on any automated command approval mechanisms to ensure platform-specific parsing correctness.
Educate developers and administrators about the risks of cross-platform parsing inconsistencies and the importance of environment-specific security controls.
If feasible, isolate systems running CodeRider-Kilo in segmented network zones to limit potential lateral movement in case of compromise.

Description

The command auto-approval module in CodeRider-Kilo contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability, rendering its whitelist security mechanism ineffective. The vulnerability stems from the incorrect use of an incompatible command parser (the Unix-based shell-quote library) to analyze commands on the Windows platform, coupled with a failure to correctly handle Windows CMD-specific escape sequences (^). Attackers can exploit this discrepancy between the parsing logic and the execution environment by constructing payloads such as git log ^" & malicious_command ^". The CodeRider-Kilo parser is deceived by the escape characters, misinterpreting the malicious command connector (&) as being within a protected string argument and thus auto-approving the command. However, the underlying Windows CMD interpreter ignores the escaped quotes, parsing and executing the subsequent malicious command directly. This allows attackers to achieve arbitrary Remote Code Execution (RCE) after bypassing what appears to be a legitimate Git whitelist check.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands remotely on Windows systems running CodeRider-Kilo, bypassing whitelist protections. This can lead to full system compromise, data theft, unauthorized access, and lateral movement within networks. Organizations relying on CodeRider-Kilo for automated command approvals are particularly vulnerable, as attackers can leverage this flaw to execute malicious payloads under the guise of legitimate commands. The impact extends to confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as attackers can exfiltrate sensitive data, alter system configurations, deploy malware, or disrupt services. The lack of authentication requirements and user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the risk of widespread attacks. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the vulnerability poses a significant threat to enterprise environments, especially those with Windows-based infrastructure and automated DevOps or CI/CD pipelines using CodeRider-Kilo.

Summary

CVE-2026-30302 identifies a critical OS Command Injection vulnerability in the CodeRider-Kilo software's command auto-approval module. The root cause is the use of a Unix-oriented shell-quote library to parse commands on Windows systems. This parser fails to correctly interpret Windows CMD-specific escape sequences, particularly the caret (^) character. Attackers exploit this by injecting payloads such as 'git log ^" & malicious_command ^"', where the parser mistakenly treats the ampersand (&) as part of a quoted string, thus approving the command. However, the Windows CMD interpreter ignores the escaped quotes and executes the malicious command following the ampersand. This discrepancy effectively bypasses the whitelist security mechanism intended to restrict command execution. The vulnerability enables arbitrary remote code execution without requiring authentication or user interaction, posing a severe risk to affected systems. Although no CVSS score has been assigned, the vulnerability's nature suggests a critical severity. No patches or known exploits are currently reported, but the issue demands urgent attention due to its potential impact.

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

github.com/Secsys-FDU/LLM-Tool-Calling-CVEs/issues/3 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Mar 2026, 16:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats