Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-47240

Command Injection

Command Injection
Published
22 June 2026
Modified
23 June 2026
CVSS Score v4 5.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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 0.0049 40th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-47240 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability. 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 40th 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)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Net::IMAP implements Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) client functionality in Ruby. Prior to 0.6.5 and 0.5.15, several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not…

more

support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. A server without support for non-synchronizing literals may interpret the "+}\r\n" as the end of a malformed command line and respond with a tagged BAD. In that case, the contents of the literal will be interpreted as one or more new pipelined commands, allowing a CRLF command injection attack to succeed. This affects criteria for #search and #uid_search; search_keys for #sort, #thread, #uid_sort, and #uid_thread; and attr for #fetch and #uid_fetch. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.6.5 and 0.5.15.

CWE(s)
CWE-77CWE-93

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.
attack.mitre.org →
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 →
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.008 Network Device CLI Execution
Adversaries may abuse scripting or built-in command line interpreters (CLI) on network devices to execute malicious command and payloads.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-42258Shared CWE-77, CWE-93
CVE-2026-47242Shared CWE-77, CWE-93
CVE-2026-42257Shared CWE-77, CWE-93
CVE-2026-72913Shared CWE-77, CWE-93
CVE-2024-53672Shared CWE-77
CVE-2024-38228Shared CWE-77
CVE-2023-1389Shared CWE-77
CVE-2023-46409Shared CWE-77
CVE-2023-37469Shared CWE-77
CVE-2026-35847Shared CWE-77

Affected Assets

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)
  • V1.2.3
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V1.2.9

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.

SA-8 Security and Privacy Engineering Principles partial match

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

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.

A.8.28 Secure coding mostly match
prevents

Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.

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

Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.

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

Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.

A.8.31 Separation of development, test and production environments none match
none

Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.

References