Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), epss.first.org. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-72880 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.9 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 36th 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-2026-55788
Vulnerability Data
Dokploy is a free, self-hostable Platform as a Service (PaaS). Prior to 0.29.13, the apiCreateCertificate schema in packages/server/src/db/schema/certificate.ts accepts a client-supplied certificatePath, and packages/server/src/services/certificate.ts joins that value to the certificate root without confinement. An authenticated user with certificate create or…
more
delete permission can use certificatePath to write attacker-controlled certificate content outside the intended directory or delete an out-of-root directory. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.29.13.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
MITRE ATT&CK v20.0
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5)
Our mappings, made for this CVE.
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)
Our mappings, derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our CWE→CSF cross-walk — 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)
Our mappings, derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our CWE→ISO cross-walk — links open the control.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
A.8.28 mandates secure coding practices (input validation, avoiding dangerous functions like system()/exec(), peer review, SAST during development) that prevent some OS command injection instances, but it is a practice-based control whose effect depends on developer skill and implementation rigor, leaving a fallible remainder that A.8.29 testing reaches more completely.
A.8.8's reach is DISCLOSURE — it finds OS command injection only where it has been published as a CVE in a third-party component, which is a minority of instances; most CWE-78 lives in first-party code that A.8.8's published-advisory and component-inventory programme does not read.