Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-30887 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) 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 at the 32th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-2026-30887 is a critical vulnerability in OneUptime, an open-source solution for monitoring and managing online services, affecting versions prior to 10.0.18. The issue lies in the Synthetic Monitors feature, which permits project members to execute custom Playwright/JavaScript code for website testing. This untrusted code runs within the insecure Node.js vm module, allowing attackers to perform a prototype-chain escape, such as via this.constructor.constructor, to bypass the sandbox and access the underlying Node.js process object.
Project members with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this over the network (AV:N) with low complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction (UI:N), achieving remote code execution (RCE) on the oneuptime-probe container and escalating to a complete cluster compromise. The probe container holds database and cluster credentials in environment variables, enabling attackers to extract these secrets post-exploitation. The vulnerability 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) and maps to CWE-94 (improper control of generation of code).
OneUptime addressed this vulnerability in version 10.0.18. The GitHub Security Advisory at GHSA-h343-gg57-2q67 provides details on the fix and recommends upgrading to the patched version to mitigate the sandbox escape and RCE risks.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10420
Vulnerability Data
OneUptime is a solution for monitoring and managing online services. Prior to 10.0.18, OneUptime allows project members to run custom Playwright/JavaScript code via Synthetic Monitors to test websites. However, the system executes this untrusted user code inside the insecure Node.js…
more
vm module. By leveraging a standard prototype-chain escape (this.constructor.constructor), an attacker can bypass the sandbox, gain access to the underlying Node.js process object, and execute arbitrary system commands (RCE) on the oneuptime-probe container. Furthermore, because the probe holds database/cluster credentials in its environment variables, this directly leads to a complete cluster compromise. This vulnerability is fixed in 10.0.18.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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 target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.