VulnerabilityPublished 11 Aug 2026Updated 13 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-73222: davila7 claude-code-templates · OS Command Injection

Affects davila7 claude-code-templatesSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High : upgrade to 1.29.4 soon.

Data as of 8 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.29.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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 11 Aug 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 9 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

Upgrade claude-code-templates and davila7/claude-code-templates to 1.29.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
davila7claude-code-templates	Affected <1.29.4	Fixed in 1.29.4
npmdavila7/claude-code-templates`pkg:npm/davila7/claude-code-templates`Other threats	Affected <1.29.4	Fixed in 1.29.4

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in version 1.29.4 of claude-code-templates. Users should upgrade to version 1.29.4 or later to remediate this issue. Until upgraded, restrict network access to port 3444 to trusted hosts only and avoid running the Studio server in untrusted environments. No vendor advisory content is provided to indicate alternative mitigations or that no action is required.

Description

### Summary `npx claude-code-templates --studio` launches "Claude Code Studio", an Express HTTP server (`cli-tool/src/sandbox-server.js`, default port 3444) that binds to **all interfaces** (`0.0.0.0`), sets `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *`, and requires **no authentication**. Two POST endpoints pass attacker-controlled request-body fields into `child_process.spawn(..., { shell: true })`. Because `shell: true` makes Node join the argv array into a single `sh -c` string, the fields are parsed by the shell and metacharacters execute. Any unauthenticated attacker who can reach the port — a malicious web page the developer visits, or anyone on the same LAN — can execute arbitrary OS commands on the developer's machine. ### Details In `cli-tool/src/sandbox-server.js`: - `app.listen(PORT, ...)` is called with no host argument, so the server listens on `0.0.0.0` / `::` (reachable from the LAN, not just localhost). - The CORS middleware sends `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` and answers the preflight `OPTIONS` for any origin, so a browser will deliver cross-origin POSTs to it. - There is no authentication on any endpoint. The vulnerable sinks: 1. `POST /api/execute` — the `prompt` body field flows into `executeLocalTask()`: ```js const child = spawn('claude', [finalPrompt], { /* ... */ shell: true }); The only validation on prompt is a length check (>= 10 chars). With shell: true, finalPrompt is interpreted by the shell. 2. POST /api/install-agent — the agentName body field: const child = spawn('npx', ['claude-code-templates@latest', '--agent', agentName, '--yes'], { /* ... */ shell: true }); 2. agentName is used unvalidated. (The same unsafe pattern is also reachable through /api/execute's agent field via checkAndInstallAgent().) Root cause: spawn(cmd, argsArray, { shell: true }) does not keep argsArray as separate argv entries — Node builds cmd + ' ' + argsArray.join(' ') and runs it via sh -c, so every element is subject to shell parsing. PoC # Victim npx claude-code-templates --studio # server on 0.0.0.0:3444 # Attacker (another LAN host, or a malicious web page fetch(), or locally) curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:3444/api/execute \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ --data '{"prompt":"aaaaaaaaaa; touch /tmp/CCT_RCE_PROOF","mode":"local"}' curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:3444/api/install-agent \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ --data '{"agentName":"x; touch /tmp/CCT_AGENT_PROOF #"}' ls -la /tmp/CCT_RCE_PROOF /tmp/CCT_AGENT_PROOF # both created => injected commands ran The aaaaaaaaaa padding satisfies the 10-char minimum, then ; (or $(...), or backticks) starts the injected command. claude/npx do not even need to be installed — the injected segment runs regardless. Confirmed at runtime on v1.28.13 (Node 22, Linux): both marker files were created, the server listened on *:3444, and an OPTIONS preflight from Origin: https://evil.example returned 200 with Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *. Impact Unauthenticated remote code execution (CWE-78) on any machine running --studio. Two reachability paths: - Drive-by: a developer running --studio who visits an attacker-controlled web page — the page's cross-origin fetch() (Content-Type application/json) passes the wildcard CORS preflight and delivers the POST, achieving RCE with no other interaction. - LAN: because the server binds 0.0.0.0, anyone on the same network (office, co-working space, public Wi-Fi) can hit port 3444 directly. Impact is full compromise of the developer's user account (arbitrary command execution with the developer's privileges): source code, SSH keys, cloud credentials, and .env secrets. Suggested fix - Remove shell: true from all three spawns so arguments stay discrete argv entries (kills the injection). - Validate agentName against a strict allowlist (^[A-Za-z0-9._/-]+$). - Bind to loopback only (app.listen(PORT, '127.0.0.1', ...)). - Replace the wildcard CORS with a same-origin allowlist and reject other origins.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands with the privileges of the developer running the Studio server. This can lead to compromise of source code, credentials, and local data. The vulnerability requires either direct network access to the exposed port 3444 or social engineering to convince a developer to visit a malicious website. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 8.8 (High), reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges required, user interaction required, and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Summary

The davila7 claude-code-templates CLI tool before version 1.29.4 contains an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) due to improper neutralization of special elements in user-supplied input. The vulnerable server component binds to all network interfaces on port 3444 without authentication and permits cross-origin requests. The POST endpoints /api/execute and /api/install-agent accept attacker-controlled input fields that are passed directly to child_process.spawn() with shell execution enabled, allowing shell metacharacters to be interpreted. This enables remote attackers who can reach the port or induce developers to visit malicious sites to execute arbitrary OS commands with the privileges of the developer running the Studio server. The vulnerability is addressed in version 1.29.4.

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).
CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (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 11 Aug 2026, 19:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78, CWE-306, CWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats