Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-6951 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Simple-Git Project Simple-Git. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 44% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-6951 is a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability (CWE-94) in versions of the simple-git npm package before 3.36.0. It stems from an incomplete fix for CVE-2022-25912, which blocked the -c option for Git configurations but failed to address the equivalent --config form. If untrusted input can reach the options argument passed to simple-git, attackers can bypass protections and execute arbitrary code.
The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating exploitation over the network with low complexity and no privileges or user interaction required. Any remote attacker able to influence the options argument—such as through user-supplied repository URLs or configuration in applications using simple-git—can achieve RCE by setting protocol.ext.allow=always via --config and specifying an ext:: clone source, leading to full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Advisories from Snyk (SNYK-JS-SIMPLEGIT-15456078) and the upstream patch commit in the git-js repository recommend upgrading to simple-git version 3.36.0 or later, which addresses the --config bypass. Practitioners should audit dependencies for vulnerable simple-git usage and validate all inputs to Git options.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25639
Vulnerability Data
Versions of the package simple-git before 3.36.0 are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) due to an incomplete fix for [CVE-2022-25912](https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-SIMPLEGIT-3112221) that blocks the -c option but not the equivalent --config form. If untrusted input can reach the options argument…
more
passed to simple-git, an attacker may still achieve remote code execution by enabling protocol.ext.allow=always and using an ext:: clone source.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
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 target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
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.
Security testing can detect argument injection but does not prevent it at the source.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Change management can catch unsafe command patterns during reviews but is not a direct mitigation.