Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-24129 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Runtipi Runtipi. Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (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.
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-2026-24129 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in Runtipi, a Docker-based personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates running multiple services on a single server. It affects versions 3.7.0 and above, stemming from the BackupManager's failure to sanitize filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists these user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname from the request, enabling injection of shell metacharacters into filenames.
An authenticated user with sufficient privileges can exploit this by uploading a backup file with a malicious filename containing shell metacharacters, such as $(id).tar.gz, to a predictable path on the host filesystem. During the subsequent restore process, the system references this file and executes the embedded command, achieving arbitrary system command execution on the host server. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 8.0 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H), reflecting network accessibility, high privileges required, changed scope, and high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The vulnerability has been fixed in Runtipi version 4.7.0. Mitigation details are available in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/runtipi/runtipi/security/advisories/GHSA-vrgf-rcj5-6gv9, the release notes at https://github.com/runtipi/runtipi/releases/tag/v4.7.0, and the fixing commit at https://github.com/runtipi/runtipi/commit/c3aa948885554a370d374692158a3bfe1cfdc85a.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4537
Vulnerability Data
Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The…
more
BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.
- 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.