Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33310 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Intake Intake. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 35th 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-2026-33310 is a command injection vulnerability in the Intake Python package, which is used for finding, investigating, loading, and disseminating data. Prior to version 2.0.9, the shell() syntax embedded within parameter default values in catalog YAML files is automatically expanded during the catalog parsing process. This allows arbitrary commands specified in the form shell(<command>) to execute when a catalog source is accessed.
The vulnerability can be exploited by remote attackers with no privileges who trick a user into loading a malicious catalog YAML file, requiring user interaction such as opening the file in Intake. Successful exploitation leads to arbitrary command execution on the host system, with high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as reflected in the CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). It is associated with CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) and CWE-94 (Code Injection).
The Intake security advisory (GHSA-37g4-qqqv-7m99) and the fixing commit (d0c0b6b57c1cb3f73880655ded4a9b0e18e1fd1b) detail the mitigation in version 2.0.9, which disables shell expansion by setting getshell to False by default across all contexts, preventing automatic command execution during catalog parsing.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-20087
Vulnerability Data
Intake is a package for finding, investigating, loading and disseminating data. Prior to version 2.0.9, the shell() syntax within parameter default values appears to be automatically expanded during the catalog parsing process. If a catalog contains a parameter default such…
more
as shell(<command>), the command may be executed when the catalog source is accessed. This means that if a user loads a malicious catalog YAML, embedded commands could execute on the host system. Version 2.0.9 mitigates the issue by making getshell False by default everywhere.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5V1.3.1
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.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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).
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
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.