CVE-2026-25996
Linuxfoundation Inspektor Gadget ≤ 0.49.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-25996 is a medium-severity Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences (CWE-150) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Inspektor Gadget. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 44th 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 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-2026-25996 is a high-severity vulnerability (CVSS 9.8, CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) affecting Inspektor Gadget, an open-source framework for data collection and system inspection on Kubernetes clusters and Linux hosts using eBPF technology. The issue stems from unsanitized string fields in eBPF events when rendered to the terminal in columns output mode, which lacks protection against control characters or ANSI escape sequences. This mode is the default when running `ig run` interactively, allowing forged event payloads to inject escape sequences directly into the operator's terminal.
An attacker who can generate a maliciously forged event payload from an observed container can exploit this remotely with low complexity and no privileges or user interaction required. The payload injection targets the terminal of Inspektor Gadget operators monitoring the cluster, enabling various effects such as terminal manipulation, potentially leading to high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability as scored by CVSS. Exploitation relies on the attacker's ability to influence eBPF events from within a container under observation (CWE-150: Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences).
Mitigation is available via the Inspektor Gadget release v0.49.1, which includes a fix in commit d59cf72971f9b7110d9c179dc8ae8b7a11dbd6d2 to sanitize string fields. Security practitioners should update to this version or later and review the GitHub Security Advisory GHSA-34r5-6j7w-235f for full details on the patch and affected versions.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-6695
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. String fields from eBPF events in columns output mode are rendered to the terminal without any sanitization…
more
of control characters or ANSI escape sequences. Therefore, a maliciously forged – partially or completely – event payload, coming from an observed container, might inject the escape sequences into the terminal of ig operators, with various effects. The columns output mode is the default when running ig run interactively.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.10V1.3.12
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 requires validation/sanitization of inputs that directly stops escape/meta/control sequences from reaching downstream components.
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 neutralization and escaping to prevent this class of flaw.
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 can detect the weakness but does not itself implement neutralization.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly neutralizes escape/meta sequences.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection and malformed input sequences.
Secure architecture principles reduce attack surface but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and neutralization of control characters before downstream processing.