Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/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-2026-55427 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Coder Coder. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Dynamic Linker Hijacking (T1574.006); 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 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-2026-42133
Vulnerability Data
Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `coder config-ssh` wrote server-supplied SSH settings (`HostnameSuffix`, `SSHConfigOptions`) into the user's `~/.ssh/config` without sanitizing embedded newlines or restricting directives so a malicious…
more
or compromised Coder server could inject arbitrary SSH configuration. Practical exploitation requires control of the server-supplied values through a malicious or compromised deployment, a man-in-the-middle position or admin access to the `HostnameSuffix` and `SSHConfigOptions` settings. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 validates `HostnameSuffix` and `SSHConfigOptions` against a strict character set that rejects newlines and other control characters. As a workaround, inspect `coder config-ssh --dry-run` output before applying changes.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.
Secure coding standards require proper neutralization of special elements, directly addressing CWE-74.