Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-41153 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Jetbrains Junie. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 17th 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-2026-41153 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-77) affecting JetBrains Junie versions prior to 252.549.29. The flaw enables arbitrary command execution when a user opens a malicious project file, as disclosed on April 17, 2026, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.8 (AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L).
Exploitation requires local access to the target system, high attack complexity, and user interaction, such as convincing a user to open a specially crafted project file in the affected JetBrains Junie instance; no privileges are needed. A successful attack can result in high confidentiality impact (e.g., unauthorized access to sensitive data), low integrity impact (limited data modification), and low availability impact (partial denial of service).
JetBrains has addressed the issue in version 252.549.29 and later, with details available in their security issues fixed advisory at https://www.jetbrains.com/privacy-security/issues-fixed/. Practitioners should ensure affected installations are updated promptly to mitigate risks.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-23430
Vulnerability Data
In JetBrains Junie before 252.549.29 command execution was possible via malicious project file
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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 input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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 coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.