Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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-2026-59680 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Suse (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 17% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-68996
Vulnerability Data
An OS command injection vulnerability was found in yast2-users. When displaying the "Password Settings" tab of a user, get_password_term() in src/include/users/dialogs.rb read the shadowLastChange and shadowExpire fields with GetString(), which performs no numeric validation, and passed the resulting string to…
more
format_days_after_epoch(). That helper interpolated the value into a shell command executed via Ruby backticks without quoting or escaping. Impact: an administrator who manages users against an external/federated LDAP directory via `yast2 users` triggers root command execution the moment they view or edit that particular user's "Password Settings" tab. No "join domain" or trust setup is required, just browsing/editing one user entry. This issue affects yast2-users through 5.0.8.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.1V1.4.2V2.1.1V2.2.2
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.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and type checking to prevent improper type handling.
Application security requirements explicitly include validation of input data types and formats.
Secure architecture principles promote defensive input handling and type enforcement at system boundaries.
Secure coding standards directly require proper type validation of all external inputs.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.