Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-3037 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Copeland Xweb 300D Pro Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 22% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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-2026-3037 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in XWEB Pro version 1.12.1 and prior. The issue allows malicious input injected into the MBird SMS service URL and/or code via the utility route, which is later processed during system setup, enabling remote code execution on the affected system. Published on 2026-02-27, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.0 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).
An authenticated attacker with high privileges (PR:H) can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network (AV:N), though it requires high attack complexity (AC:H) and no user interaction (UI:N). Exploitation changes the scope (S:C) and achieves high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, culminating in full remote code execution on the host system.
CISA ICS Advisory ICSA-26-057-10 outlines mitigation guidance, with a corresponding CSAF document available on GitHub. Software updates addressing the vulnerability can be obtained via the Copeland Dixell System Software Update page.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8980
Vulnerability Data
An OS command injection vulnerability exists in XWEB Pro version 1.12.1 and prior, enabling an authenticated attacker to achieve remote code execution on the system by modifying malicious input injected into the MBird SMS service URL and/or code via the…
more
utility route which is later processed during system setup, leading to remote code execution.
- 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.