Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-35582 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Nsa Emissary. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 43% 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 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-2026-35582 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78, CWE-116) in Emissary, a P2P-based data-driven workflow engine developed by the National Security Agency. The issue affects versions 8.42.0 and below, specifically in the Executrix.getCommand() method, which interpolates temporary file paths derived from the IN_FILE_ENDING and OUT_FILE_ENDING configuration keys directly into a /bin/sh -c shell command string without escaping or input validation. While the framework sanitizes the placeName via an allowlist, it applies no equivalent checks to these file ending values, enabling injection of arbitrary shell metacharacters through manipulation of .cfg files.
An attacker with place configuration authorship privileges—who can write or modify a .cfg file—can exploit this vulnerability locally without requiring runtime privileges beyond that access, API calls, or network connectivity. Successful exploitation allows execution of arbitrary OS commands within the JVM process's security context, potentially leading to high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts (CVSS 8.8: AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). The scope is changed due to the elevated privileges gained in the JVM environment.
The vulnerability has been addressed in Emissary version 8.43.0, as detailed in the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-3p24-9x7v-7789) and the fixing commit (1faf33f2494c0128f250d7d2e8f2da99bbd32ae8). No safe workarounds exist for downstream users, as the framework lacks escaping mechanisms or documented restrictions on metacharacters in file ending inputs. Security practitioners should upgrade to 8.43.0 or later.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-23628
Vulnerability Data
Emissary is a P2P based data-driven workflow engine. In versions 8.42.0 and below, Executrix.getCommand() is vulnerable to OS command injection because it interpolates temporary file paths into a /bin/sh -c shell command string without any escaping or input validation. The…
more
IN_FILE_ENDING and OUT_FILE_ENDING configuration keys flow directly into these paths, allowing a place author who can write or modify a .cfg file to inject arbitrary shell metacharacters that execute OS commands in the JVM process's security context. The framework already sanitizes placeName via an allowlist before embedding it in the same shell string, but applies no equivalent sanitization to file ending values. No runtime privileges beyond place configuration authorship, and no API or network access, are required to exploit this vulnerability. This is a framework-level defect with no safe mitigation available to downstream implementors, as Executrix provides neither escaping nor documented preconditions against metacharacters in file ending inputs. This issue has been fixed in version 8.43.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5
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'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).
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 life cycle mandates output encoding/escaping practices that directly prevent improper encoding.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe output handling and encoding.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of missing encoding but do not prescribe the actual technique.
Secure coding standards explicitly require correct output encoding and escaping to preserve message structure.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.