CVE-2023-39726
Mintty Project Mintty ≤ 3.6.4
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-39726 is a critical-severity Static Code Injection (CWE-96) vulnerability in Mintty Project Mintty. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique NTDS (T1003.003); ranked in the top 32% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-43426
Vulnerability Data
An issue in Mintty v.3.6.4 and before allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via crafted commands to the terminal.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Eliminates the possibility of static code injection into saved executables by making the storage non-modifiable.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input neutralization to block static code injection into templates, configs, or libraries.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training that reach static code injection when applied to the relevant development activities, but leaves a bounded remainder where implementation is incomplete or the flaw slips through the process (as with any SDLC control).
A.8.26 requires identifying and specifying requirements (incl. resilience against SQL injections, input validation, and output controls) that would address static code injection if implemented, but the control itself only mandates the requirements process and does not enforce or implement the neutralizing mechanisms.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. input sanitization, distrust external input, secure defaults) and design reviews that can stop static code injection from being introduced, but this is only one minority slice of CWE-96 (which also arises in runtime template engines, config parsers, and library generation outside the initial architecture review).
Secure coding explicitly requires proper neutralization of directives in templates, libraries and configuration files.
Security testing in development and acceptance will detect static code injection but does not prevent it at the source.