Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-24299 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Microsoft 365 Copilot. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 47th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; in the Privacy and Disclosure risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13178
Vulnerability Data
Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Enterprise AI Assistants
- Risk Domain
- Privacy and Disclosure
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: m365 copilot
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Command injection (CWE-77) in a network-accessible cloud service (M365 Copilot) directly enables remote command execution (T1059) via exploitation of a public-facing application (T1190).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation and neutralization of untrusted input to block command injection payloads in M365 Copilot.
Enforces access-control decisions that can restrict the commands and data flows an attacker can reach after injection.
Limits privileges of the Copilot process so that a successful command injection yields minimal information disclosure.
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.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.