Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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-2026-86242 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Boot or Logon Initialization Scripts (T1037); ranked at the 48th 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-14 (Permitted Actions Without Identification or Authentication) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-72104
Vulnerability Data
Bifrost HTTP transport before 2.0.0 accepts an enabled custom plugin whose path is an HTTP URL through unauthenticated POST /api/plugins when management authentication is disabled (the default, governance.auth_config.is_enabled=false). The shared-object loader treats an http-prefixed path as a download URL, writes…
more
the body to a temporary .so, and passes it to Go's plugin.Open. After a successful open, optional Init runs immediately with the supplied config as the Bifrost process user. On documented dynamically linked builds (DYNAMIC=1 / no static-link flags), which the vendor requires for custom Go plugins, plugin.Open is expected to succeed and this is unauthenticated remote code execution. On the published statically linked Docker image, plugin.Open fails with Dynamic loading not supported, so that build class is only server-side request forgery. Attack complexity is High because the attacker cannot force RCE on the default static image and a loadable plugin must match the host Go version, OS, architecture, and linkage. The 1.6.x HTTP transport line through 1.6.11 does not contain the fix.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 14 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
V10.3.5V6.2.3V6.4.4V10.4.16
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly mandates unique identification and authentication of users before access to functions requiring identity.
Extends the same authentication requirement to non-organizational users accessing critical functionality.
Requires authentication of services before they can invoke or expose critical functions.
Explicitly identifies and limits actions permitted without authentication, preventing critical functions from being exposed.
Directly enforces approved authorizations for logical access, stopping unauthorized actors from reaching resources.
Enforces flow-control policies that restrict information movement between subjects and objects.
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.AA-05 directly enforces policy-based access management and least privilege, eliminating most improper-access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also covers implementation flaws and design gaps outside a single management control.
Hardened baselines and deviation monitoring directly eliminate most configuration-induced access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also encompasses code-level and design flaws outside the scope of configuration management alone.
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.AA-01 supplies managed identities/credentials that support but do not implement access-control decisions, so it only partially prevents CWE-284 in either direction.
Authentication directly blocks unauthenticated actors (partial prevention of CWE-284) but leaves authorization logic, policy enforcement, and role checks untouched, so the control neither eliminates nor fully mitigates the broader weakness.
PR.DS-01 encryption mitigates impact of failed access checks on stored data but neither implements nor constrains access-control logic itself.
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.
High-level policy that explicitly assigns security responsibilities and mandates topic-specific rules (including access control) reduces the chance that developers or administrators will implement systems without proper authorization checks.
The classification scheme is explicitly aligned with the access-control policy, so protective controls are applied consistently and the risk of improper access decisions is lowered.
Defining and enforcing explicit access rights and restrictions for each entity directly stops the assignment of permissions that exceed what is required, eliminating the root condition that allows improper access control.
Requiring one-to-one mapping of identities to entities and timely removal of unused identities directly stops attackers from leveraging stale or shared accounts to bypass access restrictions.
Formal authorization, role-based provisioning, and timely revocation of access rights directly stop the creation of accounts or permissions that exceed what the business actually needs.
Explicitly assigning and documenting who owns each security responsibility reduces the chance that access decisions are left undefined or inconsistently enforced.
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 (4 rules)
- V-248585 OL 8 must require reauthentication when using the "sudo" command. prevents CWE-306
- V-248597 There must be no "shosts.equiv" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-248598 There must be no ".shosts" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271758 OL 9 file systems must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
- V-271757 OL 9 file systems must not contain shosts.equiv files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 7 (4 rules)
- V-204442 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not have the rsh-server package installed. prevents CWE-306
- V-204606 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not contain .shosts files. prevents CWE-284
- V-204607 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not contain shosts.equiv files. prevents CWE-284
RHEL 8 (4 rules)
- V-230492 RHEL 8 must not have the rsh-server package installed. prevents CWE-306
- V-230283 There must be no shosts.equiv files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284
- V-230284 There must be no .shosts files on the RHEL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-284