CVE-2026-35369
Uutils Coreutils ≤ 0.6.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-35369 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Uutils Coreutils. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25017
Vulnerability Data
An argument parsing error in the kill utility of uutils coreutils incorrectly interprets kill -1 as a request to send the default signal (SIGTERM) to PID -1. Sending a signal to PID -1 causes the kernel to terminate all processes…
more
visible to the caller, potentially leading to a system crash or massive process termination. This differs from GNU coreutils, which correctly recognizes -1 as a signal number in this context and would instead report a missing PID argument.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Argument parsing flaw in kill utility enables local attacker to trigger kernel-level termination of all visible processes (system-wide DoS).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of command-line arguments to the kill utility, blocking the malformed '-1' input that triggers unintended PID -1 signaling.
Requires prompt application of patches or replacements that correct the argument-parsing flaw in uutils coreutils kill.
Restricts execution of kill (and similar privileged utilities) to only the minimal set of users/processes, limiting blast radius of a successful misuse.
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 and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.