Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-27728 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Hackerbay Oneuptime. Its CVSS base score is 9.9 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 24% 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-2026-27728 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in OneUptime, an open-source solution for monitoring and managing online services. The flaw affects versions prior to 10.0.7 and exists in the `NetworkPathMonitor.performTraceroute()` function, where insufficient input validation allows shell metacharacters injected into a monitor's destination field to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the Probe server. Published on 2026-02-25, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.9 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity due to its network accessibility, low attack complexity, and potential for high-impact privilege escalation across scope.
Any authenticated project user can exploit this vulnerability remotely without user interaction by crafting a malicious destination field in a monitor configuration. Exploitation grants arbitrary command execution on the Probe server, enabling full system compromise, data exfiltration, persistence, or further lateral movement, with severe consequences for confidentiality, integrity, and availability in environments relying on OneUptime for service monitoring.
OneUptime version 10.0.7 addresses the vulnerability through input sanitization or validation fixes. Security practitioners should upgrade immediately and review the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/security/advisories/GHSA-jmhp-5558-qxh5 and the patching commit at https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/commit/f2cce35a04fac756cecc7a4c55e23758b99288c1 for implementation details.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8684
Vulnerability Data
OneUptime is a solution for monitoring and managing online services. Prior to version 10.0.7, an OS command injection vulnerability in `NetworkPathMonitor.performTraceroute()` allows any authenticated project user to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the Probe server by injecting shell metacharacters…
more
into a monitor's destination field. Version 10.0.7 fixes the vulnerability.
- 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.
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.
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.