CVE-2026-1413
Command Injection 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:L/VI:L/VA:L/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-2026-1413 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Sangfor Operation And Maintenance Security Management System. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 15% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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-2026-1413 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Security Management System up to version 3.0.12. The issue resides in the portValidate function within the file /fort/ip_and_port/port_validate of the HTTP POST Request Handler component. Manipulation of the 'port' argument enables arbitrary command execution, classified under CWE-74 and CWE-77.
The vulnerability allows remote exploitation by attackers with low privileges (PR:L), low attack complexity (AC:L), and no user interaction (UI:N). Successful attacks result in low impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:L/I:L/A:L), yielding a CVSS 3.1 base score of 6.3. An exploit for this vulnerability has been made public.
Advisories and additional details are available in references including the GitHub issue at https://github.com/LX-LX88/cve/issues/23 and VulDB entries at https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.342802, https://vuldb.com/?id.342802, and https://vuldb.com/?submit.736522. The CVE was published on 2026-01-26.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4687
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Security Management System up to 3.0.12. This affects the function portValidate of the file /fort/ip_and_port/port_validate of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument port results in…
more
command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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 output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.