Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-100844 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Project-Monai Monai. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 46% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-6 (Least Privilege) and CM-7 (Least Functionality) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-87844
Vulnerability Data
MONAI before 1.6.0 is vulnerable to OS command injection in the nnUNetV2Runner component (monai.apps.nnunet.nnunetv2_runner). User-controlled values taken from the YAML configuration file (notably dataset_name_or_id) and from CLI/kwargs arguments are concatenated into a command string without quoting or validation and then…
more
passed to subprocess with shell=True, so shell metacharacters (e.g., ';' on Linux, '&' on Windows) are interpreted. If a victim loads and processes a crafted configuration file — for example by instantiating nnUNetV2Runner with the malicious YAML and invoking a training/validation job such as train_single_model() — arbitrary commands are executed with the privileges of the user running the job.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.