VulnerabilityPublished 21 Mar 2026Updated 24 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-4515: Foundation Agents MetaGPT · Code Injection

Affects Foundation Agents MetaGPTSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 1 Nov 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
Foundation AgentsMetaGPT	Affected =0.8.0 =0.8.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on network-level controls: restrict external access to MetaGPT services, especially the code_generate function endpoint, using firewalls or network segmentation to limit exposure.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization at the application layer where possible to reduce injection risk, even if a patch is not yet available.
Monitor logs and system behavior for unusual code execution patterns or anomalies indicative of exploitation attempts.
Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect and block suspicious activities related to code injection.
Engage with the vendor or community to obtain updates or patches as soon as they become available; consider contributing to or reviewing open-source fixes if applicable.
If feasible, temporarily disable or isolate the vulnerable code_generate functionality until a secure version is released.
Conduct security awareness and incident response readiness exercises focused on detecting and responding to code injection attacks.
Review and harden the overall AI agent orchestration environment to minimize lateral movement and privilege escalation opportunities post-exploitation.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in Foundation Agents MetaGPT up to 0.8.1. This affects the function code_generate of the file metagpt/ext/aflow/scripts/operator.py. The manipulation leads to code injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-4515 on organizations worldwide can be significant depending on the deployment context of MetaGPT. Successful exploitation allows remote code execution, which can compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of systems running the vulnerable software. This may lead to unauthorized data access, manipulation of AI workflows, or disruption of automated processes relying on MetaGPT. In environments where MetaGPT orchestrates critical AI agents or workflows, attackers could pivot to other internal systems or exfiltrate sensitive information. The medium severity score reflects that while the vulnerability is exploitable remotely without authentication, the impact is somewhat limited by the scope of affected components and the current absence of known exploits. However, the lack of vendor response and patch availability increases the risk of future exploitation. Organizations using MetaGPT in production, especially in sectors such as technology, finance, healthcare, and government, could face operational disruptions or data breaches if this vulnerability is exploited. The threat is amplified in environments with internet-facing MetaGPT instances or weak network segmentation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Mar 2026, 21:21 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats