Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS scores by FIRST (EPSS SIG), generated by Empirical Security. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-41113 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Calif (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 37% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-41113 is a remote code execution vulnerability affecting sagredo qmail versions before 2026.04.07. The flaw arises from the use of popen() in the notlshosts_auto function within qmail-remote.c, which can be triggered via tls_quit. It has been classified under CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability over the network, though it requires high attack complexity and no user interaction. Successful exploitation enables arbitrary code execution on the qmail server, resulting in high impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Mitigation is provided by updating to sagredo qmail version 2026.04.07 or later, released at https://github.com/sagredo-dev/qmail/releases/tag/v2026.04.07. The fix is implemented in commit 749f607f6885e3d01b36f2647d7a1db88f1ef741, merged via pull request #42 at https://github.com/sagredo-dev/qmail/pull/42.
The vulnerability was discovered through an AI-assisted audit using Claude, as documented in https://blog.calif.io/p/we-asked-claude-to-audit-sagredos and supporting materials at https://github.com/califio/publications/tree/main/MADBugs/qmail. No evidence of real-world exploitation is available in the provided references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-23321
Vulnerability Data
sagredo qmail before 2026.04.07 allows tls_quit remote code execution because of popen in notlshosts_auto in qmail-remote.c.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.