CVE-2026-34458
Sandboxie-Plus Sandboxie ≤ 1.17.3
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-34458 is a critical-severity CRLF Injection (CWE-93) vulnerability in Sandboxie-Plus Sandboxie. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 17th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-27456
Vulnerability Data
Sandboxie-Plus is an open source sandbox-based isolation software for Windows. In versions 1.17.2 and earlier, an INI injection vulnerability allows any standard local user to bypass configuration restrictions (EditAdminOnly and ConfigPassword) and inject arbitrary directives into the global Sandboxie.ini configuration…
more
file. The background service skips authorization checks for IPC messages targeting sections beginning with UserSettings_, but does not sanitize CRLF characters in either the value parameter (via MSGID_SBIE_INI_ADD_SETTING) or the setting name parameter (via MSGID_SBIE_INI_SET_SETTING). An attacker can inject a new sandbox section header with unrestricted permissions, enabling sandbox escape and SYSTEM privilege escalation. This issue has been fixed in version 1.17.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.2.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops untrusted data containing CRLF sequences from reaching the component that treats CRLF as a delimiter.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input neutralization and validation to block CRLF injection.
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.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection.
Application security requirements include rules for neutralizing special characters such as CRLF in inputs.
Secure architecture principles encourage safe handling of untrusted data but do not prescribe specific CRLF controls.
Secure coding standards explicitly require neutralization of CRLF sequences, fully addressing this weakness.
Security testing can detect CRLF flaws but does not itself implement the neutralization.