Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-24893 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in It-Novum Openitcockpit. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 30% 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-2026-24893 is a command injection vulnerability in openITCOCKPIT Community Edition, an open source monitoring tool for engines like Nagios and Icinga, affecting versions prior to 5.5.2. The issue stems from user-controlled host attributes, particularly the host address, being directly expanded into monitoring command templates without proper validation, escaping, or quoting. These templates are subsequently executed by the monitoring engine via a shell, enabling remote code execution on the backend server.
An authenticated attacker with permissions to add or modify hosts can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By injecting malicious content into the host address field, the attacker causes arbitrary operating system commands to execute in the context of the monitoring engine process, potentially granting high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts as reflected in the CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). The flaw is linked to CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation) and CWE-78 (OS Command Injection).
Advisories from the openITCOCKPIT project recommend upgrading to version 5.5.2, which patches the vulnerability by addressing the unsafe expansion of host attributes in command templates. Details are available in the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-789q-pw85-j2q2), the release notes for version 5.5.2, and a related blog post on openitcockpit.io.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22703
Vulnerability Data
openITCOCKPIT is an open source monitoring tool built for different monitoring engines. openITCOCKPIT Community Edition prior to version 5.5.2 contains a command injection vulnerability that allows an authenticated user with permission to add or modify hosts to execute arbitrary OS…
more
commands on the monitoring backend. The vulnerability arises because user-controlled host attributes (specifically the host address) are expanded into monitoring command templates without validation, escaping, or quoting. These templates are later executed by the monitoring engine (Nagios/Icinga) via a shell, resulting in remote code execution. Version 5.5.2 patches the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
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.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20