CVE-2026-24905
Command Injection in Linuxfoundation Inspektor Gadget ≤ 0.48.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-24905 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Inspektor Gadget. Its CVSS base score is 6.6 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 33% 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-2026-24905 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-77, CWE-78) in Inspektor Gadget, a framework for data collection and system inspection on Kubernetes clusters and Linux hosts using eBPF. The flaw affects the `ig` binary's image building subcommand, implemented in `inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/build.go` and relying on the `Makefile.build` template. User-controlled data from the `buildOptions` structure, extracted from the YAML gadget manifest passed to `ig image build`, is embedded without adequate escaping into Makefile commands. Versions prior to 0.48.1 are vulnerable, with a CVSS score of 7.8 (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
An attacker must control the `build.yml` file or its options supplied to `ig image build`, such as in a CI/CD pipeline verifying untrusted gadgets. Exploitation enables arbitrary command execution on the Linux host running the `ig` command when the `--local` flag is used, or on the build container otherwise.
The vulnerability is addressed in version 0.51.1. Patches are provided in GitHub commits 7c83ad84ff7a68565655253e2cf1c5d2da695c1a and d9bf2fe4a180dad33ce57ca793ff4799ee7b8320, with further details in the security advisory GHSA-79qw-g77v-2vfh.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4954
Vulnerability Data
Inspektor Gadget is a set of tools and framework for data collection and system inspection on Kubernetes clusters and Linux hosts using eBPF. The `ig` binary provides a subcommand for image building, used to generate custom gadget OCI images. A…
more
part of this functionality is implemented in the file `inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/build.go`. The `Makefile.build` file is the Makefile template employed during the building process. This file includes user-controlled data in an unsafe fashion, specifically some parameters are embedded without an adequate escaping in the commands inside the Makefile. Prior to version 0.48.1, this implementation is vulnerable to command injection: an attacker able to control values in the `buildOptions` structure would be able to execute arbitrary commands during the building process. An attacker able to exploit this vulnerability would be able to execute arbitrary command on the Linux host where the `ig` command is launched, if images are built with the `--local` flag or on the build container invoked by `ig`, if the `--local` flag is not provided. The `buildOptions` structure is extracted from the YAML gadget manifest passed to the `ig image build` command. Therefore, the attacker would need a way to control either the full `build.yml` file passed to the `ig image build` command, or one of its options. Typically, this could happen in a CI/CD scenario that builds untrusted gadgets to verify correctness. Version 0.51.1 fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.