Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-44182

Jupyter Enterprise Gateway ≤ 3.3.0

Public PoC
Published
16 July 2026
Modified
05 August 2026
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v4 10.0
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0050 40th percentile
Risk Priority 47 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-44182 is a critical-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Jupyter Enterprise Gateway. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 40th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Jupyter Enterprise Gateway launches remote Jupyter Notebook kernels across distributed clusters like Apache Spark, Kubernetes, and Docker Swarm. In versions prior to 3.3.0, the server interpolates untrusted environment variables (e.g., KERNEL_XXX) into Kubernetes manifests without YAML-aware escaping, enabling YAML injection…

more

attacks. Attackers can inject new fields, overwrite critical fields (e.g., duplicate securityContext keys, where the last one prevails), and inject document boundaries (--- for new documents, ... for end-of-document) to generate multiple resources, potentially creating arbitrary types, such as privileged pods. The Jinja2 template for the Kubernetes manifest contains several kernel_xxx variables, such as kernel_working_dir that are used when rendering the manifest and are all vectors for YAML injection. This issue has been fixed in version 3.3.0.

CWE(s)
CWE-74

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

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.
attack.mitre.org →
T1221 Template Injection Stealth
Adversaries may create or modify references in user document templates to conceal malicious code or force authentication attempts.
attack.mitre.org →
T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
attack.mitre.org →
T1674 Input Injection Execution
Adversaries may simulate keystrokes on a victim’s computer by various means to perform any type of action on behalf of the user, such as launching the command interpreter using keyboard shortcuts, typing an inline script to be executed,…
attack.mitre.org →
T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-23749Shared CWE-74
CVE-2023-48835Shared CWE-74
CVE-2023-51939Shared CWE-74
CVE-2023-33242Shared CWE-74
CVE-2023-4157Shared CWE-74
CVE-2024-28191Shared CWE-74
CVE-2022-2992Shared CWE-74
CVE-2023-44373Shared CWE-74
CVE-2020-9757Shared CWE-74
CVE-2024-42914Shared CWE-74

Affected Assets

jupyter
enterprise gateway
≤ 3.3.0

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)
  • V1.2.1
  • V1.2.3
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.

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

Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.

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.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.

A.8.16 Monitoring activities partial match
finds

Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.

References