Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-35520

RCE

Published
07 April 2026
Modified
09 April 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 8.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0070 50th percentile
Risk Priority 65 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-35520 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability. 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 50th 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 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-2026-35520 is a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Pi-hole FTL engine, also known as FTLDNS, which provides an interactive API and generates statistics for Pi-hole's web interface. Affecting versions from 6.0 up to but not including 6.6, the flaw resides in the DHCP lease time configuration parameter (dhcp.leaseTime). It enables an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives by exploiting newline characters, resulting in command execution on the underlying system. The vulnerability is associated with CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) and CWE-93 (Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences), and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).

An authenticated attacker with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By manipulating the dhcp.leaseTime parameter through the FTL API, the attacker injects malicious dnsmasq directives separated by newlines, which the engine processes and executes as system commands. Successful exploitation grants high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts, potentially allowing full compromise of the host system running Pi-hole.

The official advisory on GitHub (GHSA-fqv2-qhfh-ghcj) confirms the vulnerability is fixed in Pi-hole FTL version 6.6, recommending immediate upgrades for affected installations. No additional mitigations are detailed beyond patching, emphasizing the need for authentication controls on the FTL API in the interim.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the DHCP lease time configuration parameter (dhcp.leaseTime). This vulnerability…

more

allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-35518Shared CWE-78, CWE-93
CVE-2026-35521Shared CWE-78, CWE-93
CVE-2026-35519Shared CWE-78, CWE-93
CVE-2026-35517Shared CWE-78, CWE-93
CVE-2024-0292Shared CWE-78
CVE-2023-40479Shared CWE-78
CVE-2025-33206Shared CWE-78
CVE-2026-32608Shared CWE-78
CVE-2024-9916Shared CWE-78
CVE-2026-8665Shared CWE-78

Affected Assets

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V15.2.5
  • V4.2.4

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 mostly match
prevents

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.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

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.

finds

Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules for neutralizing special characters such as CRLF in inputs.

prevents

Secure architecture principles encourage safe handling of untrusted data but do not prescribe specific CRLF controls.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly require neutralization of CRLF sequences, fully addressing this weakness.

References