Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-4946 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Nsa Ghidra. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
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; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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-2026-4946 is a high-severity vulnerability (CVSS 8.8) affecting Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3, a reverse engineering tool developed by the National Security Agency. The flaw stems from improper processing of annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data during auto-analysis. Specifically, the @execute annotation, intended only for trusted user-authored comments, is parsed in comments generated by auto-analysis features, such as those for CFStrings in Mach-O binaries. This leads to arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the user interface.
An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting a malicious binary that embeds the @execute directive in a way that survives auto-analysis and appears as benign clickable text in Ghidra's UI. Exploitation requires no privileges (PR:N) and can occur over the network (AV:N) with low complexity (AC:L), but demands user interaction (UI:R) from a Ghidra analyst analyzing the binary. Successful exploitation grants the attacker high-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability compromise (C:H/I:H/A:H) through execution of arbitrary commands on the analyst's local machine, classified under CWE-78 (OS Command Injection).
The official Ghidra security advisory (GHSA-mc3p-mq2p-xw6v) and related references recommend upgrading to Ghidra 12.0.3 or later, which addresses the improper parsing of annotations in auto-generated comments. Practitioners should avoid analyzing untrusted binaries until patching and consider disabling auto-analysis or reviewing generated comments carefully in vulnerable versions.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-17042
Vulnerability Data
Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3 improperly process annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data, resulting in arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the UI. Specifically, the @execute annotation (which is intended for trusted, user-authored comments) is also…
more
parsed in comments generated during auto-analysis (such as CFStrings in Mach-O binaries). This allows a crafted binary to present seemingly benign clickable text which, when clicked, executes attacker-controlled commands on the analyst’s machine.
- CWE(s)
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.