Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-29783 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Github Copilot Command Line Interface. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 29th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; in the Adversarial Attacks risk domain.
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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10049
Vulnerability Data
The shell tool within GitHub Copilot CLI versions prior to and including 0.0.422 can allow arbitrary code execution through crafted bash parameter expansion patterns. An attacker who can influence the commands executed by the agent (e.g., via prompt injection through…
more
repository files, MCP server responses, or user instructions) can exploit bash parameter transformation operators to execute hidden commands, bypassing the safety assessment that classifies commands as "read-only." This has been patched in version 0.0.423. The vulnerability stems from how the CLI's shell safety assessment evaluates commands before execution. The safety layer parses and classifies shell commands as either read-only (safe) or write-capable (requires user approval). However, several bash parameter expansion features can embed executable code within arguments to otherwise read-only commands, causing them to appear safe while actually performing arbitrary operations. The specific dangerous patterns are ${var@P}, ${var=value} / ${var:=value}, ${!var}, and nested $(cmd) or <(cmd) inside ${...} expansions. An attacker who can influence command text sent to the shell tool - for example, through prompt injection via malicious repository content (README files, code comments, issue bodies), compromised or malicious MCP server responses, or crafted user instructions containing obfuscated commands - could achieve arbitrary code execution on the user's workstation. This is possible even in permission modes that require user approval for write operations, since the commands can appear to use only read-only utilities to ultimately trigger write operations. Successful exploitation could lead to data exfiltration, file modification, or further system compromise.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Enterprise AI Assistants
- Risk Domain
- Adversarial Attacks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: github copilot, mcp, prompt injection
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.