Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-26279 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Froxlor Froxlor. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 47% 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-2026-26279 is a critical vulnerability in Froxlor, an open source server administration software. Prior to version 2.3.4, a typo in the input validation code—using == instead of =—completely disables email format checking for all settings fields declared as email type. This flaw allows arbitrary strings to be stored in the panel.adminmail setting, which is later concatenated into a shell command executed as root by a cron job. The pipe character | is explicitly whitelisted in this command, enabling command injection. The vulnerability is associated with CWE-78 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command) and CWE-482 (Comparing instead of Assigning), and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).
An authenticated administrator can exploit this vulnerability remotely with low complexity. By supplying a malicious string containing a whitelisted pipe character to the panel.adminmail field, the attacker injects arbitrary commands into the root-executed cron job shell command. Successful exploitation results in full root-level remote code execution on the server.
The Froxlor security advisory (GHSA-33mp-8p67-xj7c) details the issue and confirms it is fixed in version 2.3.4. The patching commit (22249677107f8f39f8d4a238605641e87dab4343) corrects the validation typo, and administrators are directed to upgrade to the 2.3.4 release for mitigation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9340
Vulnerability Data
Froxlor is open source server administration software. Prior to 2.3.4, a typo in Froxlor's input validation code (== instead of =) completely disables email format checking for all settings fields declared as email type. This allows an authenticated admin to…
more
store arbitrary strings in the panel.adminmail setting. This value is later concatenated into a shell command executed as root by a cron job, where the pipe character | is explicitly whitelisted. The result is full root-level Remote Code Execution. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.3.4.
- 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.
Requiring documented development standards and static-analysis tools reduces the chance that comparison-vs-assignment typos are introduced or survive review.
An SDLC that incorporates secure-coding practices makes this class of simple operator error less likely to reach production.
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.
Secure SDLC processes include coding standards that reduce this class of error.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly prevent use of comparison operators where assignment was intended.