Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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-2026-32948 is a medium-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Scala.Epfl Sbt. Its CVSS base score is 6.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 23th 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-2026-32948 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in sbt, an open-source build tool for Scala, Java, and other languages. It affects versions from 0.9.5 up to but excluding 1.12.7 on Windows systems. The flaw occurs when sbt executes version control system (VCS) commands for git, hg, or svn using the Process("cmd", "/c", ...) invocation. A user-controlled URI fragment—specifying a branch, tag, or revision—from the build definition is passed to these commands without validation. Windows cmd /c interprets characters such as &, |, and ; as command separators, allowing injection of arbitrary commands. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Exploitation requires an attacker to control the build definition, such as through a malicious project dependency or repository. A victim with local access to the Windows system must then interact by running sbt to build the project, triggering the VCS command with the tainted URI fragment. No privileges are needed (PR:N), and the attack is low complexity (AC:L). Successful exploitation enables arbitrary command execution on the victim's machine, potentially leading to high-impact compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The vulnerability was patched in sbt version 1.12.7. Security practitioners should upgrade affected installations immediately. Official mitigation details are available in the GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-x4ff-q6h8-v7gw), the v1.12.7 release notes, and the patching commits 1ce945b6b79cbe3cef6c0fe9efbbd2904e0f479e and 3a474ab060df4dbfa825a7e7bc97e00056519800.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-14990
Vulnerability Data
sbt is a build tool for Scala, Java, and others. From version 0.9.5 to before version 1.12.7, on Windows, sbt uses Process("cmd", "/c", ...) to run VCS commands (git, hg, svn). The URI fragment (branch, tag, revision) is user-controlled via…
more
the build definition and passed to these commands without validation. Because cmd /c interprets &, |, and ; as command separators, a malicious fragment can execute arbitrary commands. This issue has been patched in version 1.12.7.
- 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.