Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-45136

Command Injection in Cnighswonger Claude-Code-Cache-Fix 3.5.0 – 3.5.2

Published
27 May 2026
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 8.6
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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 0.0019 9th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-45136 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Cnighswonger Claude-Code-Cache-Fix. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 9th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; in the Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.

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

No EU or UK CSIRT advisories indexed for this CVE.

Vulnerability Data

claude-code-cache-fix is a cache optimization proxy for Claude Code. From 3.5.0 to before 3.5.2, tools/quota-statusline.sh (introduced in v3.5.0) interpolates Claude Code's hook stdin payload directly into a Python triple-quoted string literal. A ''' byte sequence in any user-controlled field of…

more

the payload closes the literal early and lets following bytes execute as Python in the user's Claude Code process. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.5.2.

CWE(s)

AI Security AnalysisAI

AI Category
Enterprise AI Assistants
Risk Domain
Supply Chain and Deployment
OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
None mapped
Classification Reason
Matched keywords: claude

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.002 AppleScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse AppleScript for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-24887Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2025-59041Shared CWE-94
CVE-2025-1976Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2024-12652Shared CWE-94
CVE-2025-53927Shared CWE-94
CVE-2025-61590Shared CWE-94
CVE-2025-10875Shared CWE-94
CVE-2024-41468Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2024-6507Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2024-52959Shared CWE-94

Affected Assets

cnighswonger
claude-code-cache-fix
3.5.0 — 3.5.2

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)
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V15.2.5
  • V1.3.1

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.

Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.

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 mostly match
prevents

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.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

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).

PR.DS-10 none match
prevents

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.

finds

Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.

prevents

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.

none

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.

References