VulnerabilityPublished 14 Apr 2026Updated 16 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-39420: 1Panel-dev MaxKB · Protection Mechanism Failure

Affects 1Panel-dev MaxKBSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.8.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.8.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: 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 14 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 MaxKB and 1panel-dev/MaxKB to 2.8.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
1Panel-devMaxKB	Affected <2.8.0	Fixed in 2.8.0
GitHub1panel-dev/MaxKB`pkg:github/1panel-dev/MaxKB`Other threats	Affected <2.8.0	Fixed in 2.8.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade MaxKB to version 2.8.0 or later, where this sandbox bypass vulnerability has been fixed. Patch status is not explicitly confirmed beyond the version fix; check the vendor repository or official release notes for confirmation.

Description

MaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. In versions 2.7.1 and below, an incomplete sandbox protection mechanism allows an authenticated user with tool execution privileges to escape the LD_PRELOAD-based sandbox. By env command the attacker can clear the environment variables and drop the sandbox.so hook, leading to unrestricted Remote Code Execution (RCE) and network access. MaxKB restricts untrusted Python code execution via the Tool Debug API by injecting sandbox.so through the LD_PRELOAD environment variable. This intercepts sensitive C library functions (like execve, socket, open) to restrict network and file access. However, a patch allowed the /usr/bin/env utility to be executed by the sandboxed user. When an attacker is permitted to create subprocesses, they can execute the env -i python command. The -i flag instructs env to completely clear all environment variables before running the target program. This effectively drops the LD_PRELOAD environment variable. The newly spawned Python process will therefore execute natively without any sandbox hooks, bypassing all network and file system restrictions. This issue has been fixed in version 2.8.0.

Impact

An authenticated user with tool execution privileges can bypass sandbox restrictions intended to limit network and file system access, resulting in unrestricted remote code execution and network access. This compromises the security boundaries enforced by the sandbox, potentially allowing malicious actions within the enterprise environment where MaxKB is deployed.

Summary

MaxKB, an open-source AI assistant, uses LD_PRELOAD to inject sandbox.so for restricting untrusted Python code execution by intercepting sensitive C library functions. In versions 2.7.1 and earlier, the sandbox can be bypassed because the /usr/bin/env utility can be executed with the -i flag, which clears all environment variables including LD_PRELOAD. This causes the spawned Python process to run without sandbox restrictions, allowing an authenticated user with tool execution privileges to perform unrestricted remote code execution and network access. The vulnerability is identified as CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure) and CWE-78 (OS Command Injection). It has a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.3 (medium severity) and was fixed in MaxKB version 2.8.0.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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 before 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 21 Apr 2026, 05:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693, CWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats