VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-97042: Go toolchain cmd/cgo · Argument Injection

Affects Go toolchain cmd/cgoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 1.27.4 or 1.26.11 when convenient.

Data as of 11 Nov 2026, 03:33 UTC

Severity

Unrated

Rated by Threat Radar · CVSS not yet scored by NVD

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.27.4, 1.26.11

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Nov 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 10 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 cmd/cgo and cmd/compile and cmd/link to 1.27.4 or 1.26.11.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Go toolchaincmd/cgo	Affected >=1.27.0-0 <1.27.4	Fixed in 1.27.4
Go toolchaincmd/cgo	Affected <1.26.11	Fixed in 1.26.11
Go toolchaincmd/compile	Affected >=1.27.0-0 <1.27.4	Fixed in 1.27.4
Go toolchaincmd/compile	Affected <1.26.11	Fixed in 1.26.11
Go toolchaincmd/link	Affected >=1.27.0-0 <1.27.4	Fixed in 1.27.4
Go toolchaincmd/link	Affected <1.26.11	Fixed in 1.26.11

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

Description

Building a malicious package that uses "//go:cgo_import_dynamic" or links against a crafted PE object on Windows could pass unsafe library arguments to the external linker. The compiler only checked the first character of the library name in "//go:cgo_import_dynamic" directives and skipped validation in cgo-generated files. In addition, on Windows, "cmd/cgo" and "cmd/link" did not validate imported DLL names extracted from PE object files before emitting "-l<name>" flags for the external linker, allowing a crafted DLL name containing ".." path traversal or special characters to reference arbitrary files on disk. The compiler now validates every character of the library name in "//go:cgo_import_dynamic" directives (including in cgo-generated files on Windows) and rejects ".." path traversal, and "cmd/cgo" and "cmd/link" reject PE imported DLL names containing path separators, "..", ":", or leading "-" or "@".

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command (Argument Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
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
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter 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

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats