CVE-2026-40602
Home-Assistant-Ecosystem Home Assistant Command-Line Interface ≤ 1.0.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-40602 is a medium-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Home-Assistant-Ecosystem Home Assistant Command-Line Interface. Its CVSS base score is 5.6 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Template Injection (T1221); ranked at the 1th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-24211
Vulnerability Data
The Home Assistant Command-line interface (hass-cli) is a command-line tool for Home Assistant. Up to 1.0.0 of home-assitant-cli an unrestricted environment was used to handle Jninja2 templates instead of a sandboxed one. The user-supplied input within Jinja2 templates was rendered…
more
locally with no restrictions. This gave users access to Python's internals and extended the scope of templating beyond the intended usage. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2V1.3.7V1.3.10V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Security engineering principles require use of safe templating APIs and proper escaping of external input.
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 target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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 can detect template-injection flaws but does not itself implement neutralization controls.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and sanitization that directly prevents template-injection weaknesses.
Application security requirements explicitly call for neutralizing special elements in template engines.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of unsafe template processing but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.