VulnerabilityPublished 24 Apr 2026Updated 27 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-41414: skim · Code Injection

Affects skimSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 24 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
skim-rsskim	Affected =< bf63404ad51985b00ed304690ba9d477860a5a75	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

A fix is available and implemented in commit bf63404ad51985b00ed304690ba9d477860a5a75. Users should update to this commit or later versions to remediate the vulnerability. Until patched, it is recommended to restrict or disable workflows that run untrusted code from forked pull requests or to implement proper gating controls to prevent execution of attacker-controlled code with access to sensitive secrets.

Description

Skim is a fuzzy finder designed to through files, lines, and commands. The generate-files job in .github/workflows/pr.yml checks out attacker-controlled fork code and executes it via cargo run, with access to SKIM_RS_BOT_PRIVATE_KEY and GITHUB_TOKEN (contents:write). No gates prevent exploitation - any GitHub user can trigger this by opening a pull request from a fork. This vulnerability is fixed with commit bf63404ad51985b00ed304690ba9d477860a5a75.

Impact

An attacker can execute arbitrary code in the GitHub Actions environment by submitting a pull request from a forked repository. This execution has access to sensitive secrets including SKIM_RS_BOT_PRIVATE_KEY and GITHUB_TOKEN with write permissions, potentially allowing unauthorized code changes or repository manipulation. The integrity of the project and its codebase can be compromised. There is no reported impact on confidentiality or availability. No known public exploits have been reported to date.

Summary

The vulnerability arises from the GitHub Actions workflow in skim-rs that runs code from forked pull requests without sufficient validation or gating. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code within the workflow environment, gaining access to sensitive tokens with write permissions. The flaw is classified as CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code). The vulnerability affects all versions prior to commit bf63404ad51985b00ed304690ba9d477860a5a75, which contains the fix. The CVSS 3.1 score is 7.4 (High), reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges required, user interaction required, scope changed, no confidentiality impact, high integrity impact, and no availability impact.

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 1 May 2026, 20:34 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats