Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-10796 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Openjsf Node Version Manager. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 38th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-34303
Vulnerability Data
nvm (Node Version Manager) through 0.40.4 executes arbitrary commands from version strings supplied by the configured Node.js/io.js mirror. Commands such as `nvm install` read the available versions from the mirror's index.tab and use the selected version, without sanitization, to build…
more
download URLs and shell/awk commands. Two sinks are affected by the same untrusted input: nvm_download() built a curl/wget command string and ran it with `eval`, so a version field containing command substitution (for example $(id)) was executed by the local shell; and nvm_get_checksum() interpolated the version-derived download slug into an awk program, so a crafted version could execute arbitrary commands via awk's system(). An attacker who controls the configured mirror, supplies mirror content to a user or CI on a non-default mirror, or machine-in-the-middles a non-TLS mirror can ∴ run arbitrary commands with the privileges of the user running nvm. The default mirror (https://nodejs.org over TLS) is not affected. Fixed on master (pending the next tagged release) by passing every argument as a literal argv element instead of using eval, by passing the value to awk as data via -v instead of interpolating it into the program, and by rejecting any version outside the Node.js/io.js version grammar before it is used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
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.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.