Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-48787 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 50% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; in the Protocol-Specific Risks 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38077
Vulnerability Data
gin-vue-admin is an AI-assisted basic development platform. In version 2.9.1, an authenticated attacker with access to the code-generation feature and MCP management interface can exploit this vulnerability by injecting attacker-controlled Go source code through POST /autoCode/addFunc, and then invoking POST…
more
/autoCode/mcpStart to trigger a rebuild and restart of the standalone MCP service. This allows arbitrary operating system commands to be executed on the server with the privileges of the application process. Successful exploitation may lead to remote code execution (RCE), modification of backend source code or runtime logic, deployment of persistent backdoors, access to or manipulation of application data and configuration, and further impact on local resources running under the same service account or privilege context. The risk is highest in deployments that retain the source tree, allow writes to source files, and support local build or startup of standalone MCP components. In environments using binary-only releases, read-only filesystems, or with local build capabilities removed, the exploitability of the full attack chain is significantly reduced. However, once the online code-generation capability and MCP-hosted startup workflow are enabled, the overall security impact may reach high to critical severity. As of time of publication, it is unknown if a patched version is available. As a workaround, enforce strict allowlist validation on path- and identifier-related fields such as `humpPackageName`, `packageName`, `FuncName`, and `Router`, and only permit safe identifier formats.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: ai, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
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.