Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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-2026-7551 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Hkuds Openharness. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 49th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.
HKUDS OpenHarness is affected by CVE-2026-7551, a remote code execution vulnerability (CWE-78) published on 2026-04-30, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). The issue resides in the /bridge slash command, where remote senders accepted by configuration can supply attacker-controlled command text via the /bridge spawn subcommand. This input is forwarded to the bridge session manager and executed through a shared shell subprocess helper.
Attackers with low privileges—specifically, remote senders authorized in the OpenHarness configuration—can exploit this over the network with low complexity and no user interaction. Successful exploitation enables spawning shell sessions as the OpenHarness process user, providing high-impact access to local files, credentials, workspace state, and repository contents.
Mitigation details are provided in the patching GitHub commit 438e37309778e19060dfe7b172eb142e543c4cd6 and pull request #208. Further advisory information, including exploitation vectors and remediation guidance, is available from VulnCheck at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/hkuds-openharness-remote-command-execution-via-bridge-slash-command.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26451
Vulnerability Data
HKUDS OpenHarness contains a remote code execution vulnerability in the /bridge slash command that allows remote senders accepted by configuration to execute arbitrary operating system commands. Attackers can invoke the /bridge spawn command with attacker-controlled command text that is forwarded…
more
to the bridge session manager and executed through the shared shell subprocess helper, allowing them to spawn shell sessions as the OpenHarness process user and access local files, credentials, workspace state, and repository contents.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.