Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33396 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) 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 in the top 46% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — 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-2026-33396 is a high-severity vulnerability in OneUptime, an open-source monitoring and observability platform, affecting versions prior to 10.0.35. It stems from an incomplete sandbox in the Synthetic Monitor Playwright script execution feature, where user-supplied code runs in VMRunner.runCodeInNodeVM alongside a live Playwright page object. The sandbox uses a denylist of blocked properties and methods, but fails to block _browserType and launchServer, enabling traversal via page.context().browser()._browserType.launchServer(...) to spawn arbitrary processes and achieve remote command execution (RCE) on the Probe container or host. The issue is classified under CWE-78 (OS Command Injection), CWE-184 (Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs), and CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure), with 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).
A low-privileged authenticated user with ProjectMember role can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By crafting malicious Synthetic Monitor scripts, the attacker bypasses the sandbox to execute arbitrary commands on the affected Probe container or host, potentially leading to full compromise including high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts due to the high scope change.
The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-cqpg-phpp-9jjg) and associated patch commit detail mitigation via version 10.0.35, which addresses the incomplete denylist in the Playwright sandbox to prevent the traversal and command execution. Security practitioners should upgrade to 10.0.35 or later and review access to ProjectMember roles in Synthetic Monitor configurations.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-16189
Vulnerability Data
OneUptime is an open-source monitoring and observability platform. Prior to version 10.0.35, a low-privileged authenticated user (ProjectMember) can achieve remote command execution on the Probe container/host by abusing Synthetic Monitor Playwright script execution. Synthetic monitor code is executed in VMRunner.runCodeInNodeVM…
more
with a live Playwright page object in context. The sandbox relies on a denylist of blocked properties/methods, but it is incomplete. Specifically, _browserType and launchServer are not blocked, so attacker code can traverse `page.context().browser()._browserType.launchServer(...)` and spawn arbitrary processes. Version 10.0.35 contains a patch.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 10 hardening rules · 6 OS baselines
V3.5.2V4.4.2V16.2.5V6.3.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires enforcement of access authorizations via the protection mechanism itself.
AC-4 mandates use of information flow enforcement mechanisms to control data movement.
SC-2 requires separation of user and system functionality as a protection mechanism.
SC-28 requires protection mechanisms for information at rest.
SC-3 requires isolation of security functions from non-security functions.
SC-7 requires boundary protection mechanisms to monitor and control external communications.
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.
Enforcing authentication directly implements a core protection mechanism whose absence or misuse is the CWE.
Defining and enforcing access authorizations is a protection mechanism; proper use prevents the CWE.
Cryptographic and integrity controls are protection mechanisms whose correct deployment mitigates the CWE.
Encryption and integrity protections for transit are explicit protection mechanisms.
Logical network protections are protection mechanisms whose failure matches the CWE.
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.
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.
Systematic verification that security mechanisms operate according to defined standards reduces the likelihood that protection mechanisms are bypassed or disabled.
Hardening devices, disabling vulnerable protocols, and maintaining accurate network diagrams reduce the likelihood that a protection mechanism is misconfigured or left in a weak state.
Application security requirements can mandate complete input validation rules, but the control itself does not prescribe how to build those rules.
Secure architecture principles include robust input validation design, yet the control is broader than this single weakness.
Secure coding standards directly require exhaustive allow-lists or complete deny-lists for inputs, addressing the root cause of incomplete disallowed-input lists.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248524 OL 8 must implement NIST FIPS-validated cryptography for the following: To provision digital signatures, to generate cryptographic hashes, and to protect data requiring data-at-rest protections in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards. prevents CWE-693
- V-248525 All OL 8 local disk partitions must implement cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure or modification of all information that requires at-rest protection. prevents CWE-693
Windows 10 (2 rules)
- V-220865 The Windows Remote Management (WinRM) service must not use Basic authentication. prevents CWE-693
- V-220812 Credential Guard must be running on Windows 10 domain-joined systems. prevents CWE-693
Windows 11 (1 rule)
- V-253418 The Windows Remote Management (WinRM) service must not use Basic authentication. prevents CWE-693
Windows Server 2016 (1 rule)
- V-225012 Windows Server 2016 must be running Credential Guard on domain-joined member servers. prevents CWE-693
Windows Server 2019 (1 rule)
- V-205907 Windows Server 2019 must be running Credential Guard on domain-joined member servers. prevents CWE-693
Windows Server 2022 (1 rule)
- V-254441 Windows Server 2022 must be running Credential Guard on domain-joined member servers. prevents CWE-693