CVE-2026-1324
RCE in Sangfor Operation And Maintenance Security Management System ≤ 3.0.12
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-1324 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Sangfor Operation And Maintenance Security Management System. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 7% 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-1324 is an OS command injection vulnerability affecting the Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management System versions up to 3.0.12. The issue resides in the SessionController function within the file /isomp-protocol/protocol/session of the SSH Protocol Handler component. By manipulating the keypassword argument, an attacker can inject arbitrary operating system commands, as classified under CWE-77 (Command Injection) and CWE-78 (OS Command Injection). The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and was published on 2026-01-22.
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by an authenticated attacker with low privileges (PR:L), requiring no user interaction and low complexity. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to achieve high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially leading to full system compromise through arbitrary command execution on the underlying operating system.
Advisories from VulDB and a related GitHub issue detail the vulnerability but report no vendor response despite early disclosure notification. No patches or official mitigations are available, with recent submissions highlighting the issue on VulDB platforms.
A public exploit is available, increasing the likelihood of active exploitation against unpatched Sangfor OMM systems.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4153
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was identified in Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management System up to 3.0.12. Affected by this issue is the function SessionController of the file /isomp-protocol/protocol/session of the component SSH Protocol Handler. The manipulation of the argument keypassword leads to…
more
os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
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 include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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 validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.