Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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-2026-50112 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Apache Cloudstack. 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 39th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-63847
Vulnerability Data
SSRF via Metalink Mirror URL Resolution: An authenticated tenant can register a template pointing to an attacker-controlled metalink file containing internal targets. The Secondary Storage VM will retrieve the data and persist it as a template file, which can later…
more
be downloaded through normal APIs. RCE on KVM hypervisor via NFS, Metalink files with/without Direct Downloads: An authenticated CloudStack tenant holding the default User role can execute arbitrary shell commands as root on the KVM hypervisor host that runs other tenants' VMs. This is cross-tenant root on the underlying compute, reachable via the public CloudStack API. When a User registers a VM template with directDownload=true and a URL pointing to a .metalink file, the management server fetches the metalink XML and dispatches download to the KVM agent. Inner URLs inside the metalink XML are never re-validated against the scheme allowlist. These issues affect Apache CloudStack: from 4.14.0.0 through 4.20.3.0 and from 4.21.0.0 through 4.22.1.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.20.3.1 or 4.22.1.1 or later, which fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5V1.3.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
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.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
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.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.