CVE-2026-1414
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-2026-1414 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 9% 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-2026-1414 is a command injection vulnerability in Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Security Management System versions up to 3.0.12. It affects the getInformation function in the file /equipment/get_Information within the HTTP POST Request Handler component, where manipulation of the fortEquipmentIp argument enables command injection. The vulnerability was published on 2026-01-26 and is associated with CWEs-74 and CWE-77, carrying a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L).
An attacker can exploit this vulnerability remotely with low privileges required, low attack complexity, and no user interaction needed. Successful exploitation allows limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, such as executing arbitrary commands on the affected system.
Advisories and details are available via VulDB entries (https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.342803, https://vuldb.com/?id.342803, https://vuldb.com/?submit.736524) and a GitHub issue (https://github.com/LX-LX88/cve/issues/24), though specific patch or mitigation guidance is not detailed in the core disclosure.
The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized, posing risks to unpatched instances of the affected software.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4688
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was determined in Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Security Management System up to 3.0.12. This impacts the function getInformation of the file /equipment/get_Information of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument fortEquipmentIp can lead…
more
to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.
- 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.