Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/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-2026-55441 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Executable Installer File Permissions Weakness (T1574.005); ranked at the 8th 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-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-39815
Vulnerability Data
mise manages dev tools like node, python, cmake, and terraform. Prior to 2026.6.4, mise's trust feature gates config files (mise.toml, .tool-versions) through trust_check, but task-include files are loaded on a path that never reaches it. When a directory has a…
more
task-include dir (mise-tasks/, .mise/tasks/, …) but no config file, mise falls back to the default includes and renders each task's tera fields — and that tera environment has exec() registered. A {{ exec(command='…') }} in any rendered field runs arbitrary commands the moment the tasks are merely listed. There's no config file to gate on, so no trust prompt ever appears. Read-only commands trigger it: mise tasks, mise task ls, mise run, mise tasks --usage (the query shell completion runs on Tab). The victim only has to cd into a cloned repo and list or tab-complete a task. This vulnerability is fixed in 2026.6.4.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 5 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces the access control policy that defines permissions on resources, thereby stopping incorrect assignments from remaining exploitable.
Directly requires assignment of only the minimum necessary permissions, preventing overly broad grants on critical resources.
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 functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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.
Directly requires defining, enforcing, and reviewing access permissions and least privilege on resources.
Hardened baselines and configuration management explicitly include correct permission settings for critical resources.
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).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Topic-specific policies on asset management and secure configuration establish expectations for correct permission settings on critical resources, lowering the likelihood that default or overly permissive permissions will be left in place.
Classification results drive the assignment of permissions and handling procedures, decreasing the likelihood that critical resources receive incorrect or overly permissive permission settings.
By requiring owners to determine and document the exact permissions needed for each asset, the control reduces the likelihood that default or overly permissive file and resource permissions will be left in place.
Documented provisioning and revocation procedures reduce the chance that critical resources retain overly permissive default or leftover permissions after personnel changes.
Documented responsibility for protecting assets encourages correct permission settings rather than leaving them at insecure defaults.
Monitoring supplier policy changes and conducting audits can reveal incorrect permission assignments on resources managed by the supplier, prompting corrective action before they are exploited.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248577 OL 8 must enable kernel parameters to enforce Discretionary Access Control (DAC) on symlinks. prevents CWE-732
Windows Server 2016 (2 rules)
- V-224972 Active Directory Group Policy objects must have proper access control permissions. prevents CWE-732
- V-224831 Local volumes must use a format that supports NTFS attributes. prevents CWE-732
Windows Server 2019 (2 rules)
- V-205741 Windows Server 2019 Active Directory Group Policy objects must have proper access control permissions. prevents CWE-732
- V-205663 Windows Server 2019 local volumes must use a format that supports NTFS attributes. prevents CWE-732