VulnerabilityPublished 16 Oct 2026Updated 31 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-102832: Command link trust prompt in JupyterLab can trust a document other than the one clicked

Affects jupyterlabSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium : upgrade to 4.6.4_1 when convenient.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 17:06 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 4.6.4_1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 impacted component.
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 on 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 16 Oct 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 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

Upgrade jupyterlab to 4.6.4_1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewjupyterlab`pkg:brew/jupyterlab`Other threats	Affected >=4.5.7 <4.6.4_1	Fixed in 4.6.4_1

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available in JupyterLab versions 4.6.4 and 4.5.11 that fixes this issue by associating the trust prompt with the originally clicked document. Users and applications bundling JupyterLab (e.g., Notebook 7.5+) should update the jupyterlab package accordingly. As a workaround for environments unable to upgrade immediately, disabling the command linker feature prevents execution of frontend commands but also disables command link buttons globally. Alternatively, users can choose 'Run Once' instead of 'Trust' to avoid marking documents as trusted erroneously.

Description

JupyterLab versions 4.5.7 through 4.6.3 have a vulnerability where the trust prompt for command links can incorrectly mark a different document as trusted than the one the user clicked. This occurs if another document becomes current while the trust prompt is open. Trusted documents allow buttons to run commands without further prompts, potentially enabling unintended command execution. When a notebook is incorrectly trusted, it is saved to disk as trusted, persisting the effect beyond the session. The issue is patched in versions 4.6.4 and 4.5.11.

Impact

The vulnerability allows a user to unintentionally trust a document different from the one they intended, causing commands in that document to run without prompts on subsequent clicks. This undermines the security model designed to prevent untrusted code execution. For notebooks, the trusted state is saved to disk, so the risk persists across sessions. The user consents to the command execution, but the trust applies to the wrong document, potentially exposing users to executing commands from untrusted sources without confirmation.

Summary

In JupyterLab 4.5.7 to 4.6.3, clicking a button in a Markdown file or notebook output triggers a trust prompt before running a command. However, the document that gets marked as trusted is determined at the time the user responds to the prompt, not when they click the button. If another document becomes active during the prompt, that other document is marked trusted instead. This causes the user to lose control over which document is trusted, allowing commands in the incorrectly trusted document to run without further prompts. For notebooks, this trust state is saved to disk, persisting the risk. The vulnerability is fixed in JupyterLab 4.6.4 and 4.5.11 by ensuring the trust applies to the originally clicked document only.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 31 Oct 2026, 17:06 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats