CVE-2026-2956
Command Injection in Dst-Admin Project Dst-Admin ≤ 1.5.0
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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-2026-2956 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dst-Admin Project Dst-Admin. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 6% 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-2026-2956 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-74, CWE-77) affecting qinming99 dst-admin versions up to 1.5.0. The issue lies in the revertBackup function of the /home/restore file, where manipulation of the Name argument allows attackers to inject and execute arbitrary commands.
The vulnerability enables remote exploitation (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and requires low privileges (PR:L) but no user interaction (UI:N), with unchanged scope (S:U). Successful exploitation results in low impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:L/I:L/A:L), yielding a CVSS 3.1 base score of 6.3.
Advisories from VULDB note that the vendor was contacted early regarding disclosure but provided no response, and no patches or official mitigations are available. An exploit has been publicly released, heightening the potential for real-world attacks. Relevant references include https://fx4tqqfvdw4.feishu.cn/docx/ObYgdtoweowo8Vx4dmuckqC7nBe?from=from_copylink, https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.347323, https://vuldb.com/?id.347323, and https://vuldb.com/?submit.754508.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-7553
Vulnerability Data
A security flaw has been discovered in qinming99 dst-admin up to 1.5.0. This affects the function revertBackup of the file /home/restore. The manipulation of the argument Name results in command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has…
more
been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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 output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.