Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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-2026-22785 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Orval Orval. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 49% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; in the Protocol-Specific Risks risk domain.
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-2026-22785 is a critical vulnerability in orval, a tool that generates type-safe JavaScript/TypeScript clients from OpenAPI v3 or Swagger v2 specifications. In versions prior to 7.18.0, the MCP server generation logic performs string manipulation that directly incorporates the summary field from the OpenAPI specification without proper validation or escaping. This flaw enables attackers to break out of the intended string literal and inject arbitrary code, classified under CWE-77 (Command Injection) with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by any unauthenticated attacker with network access, requiring low complexity and no user interaction. Exploitation occurs when a developer processes a malicious OpenAPI specification containing a crafted summary field during client or MCP server generation, leading to arbitrary code execution on the developer's system with the privileges of the orval process.
The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-mwr6-3gp8-9jmj) and fixing commit (80b5fe73b94f120a3a5561952d6d4b0f8d7e928d) confirm the issue is resolved in orval version 7.18.0 through proper validation and escaping of the summary field. Security practitioners should advise upgrading to 7.18.0 or later and recommend validating OpenAPI specifications from untrusted sources before processing.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-2002
Vulnerability Data
orval generates type-safe JS clients (TypeScript) from any valid OpenAPI v3 or Swagger v2 specification. Prior to 7.18.0, the MCP server generation logic relies on string manipulation that incorporates the summary field from the OpenAPI specification without proper validation or…
more
escaping. This allows an attacker to "break out" of the string literal and inject arbitrary code. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.18.0.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: mcp
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.
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.
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.