CVE-2026-89066
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-2026-89066 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Amazon (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 5th 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-6 (Least Privilege) and CM-7 (Least Functionality) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-76151
Vulnerability Data
Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command in the task synthesis component in projen before 0.103.0 might allow context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary commands on a developer workstation or continuous integration runner via shell metacharacters in project…
more
configuration values and repository file names that are interpolated into generated task definitions. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to version 0.103.0 and then re-synthesize the project so that .projen/tasks.json is regenerated with the corrected task definitions. Upgrading alone is not sufficient because the generated task definition file is committed to the repository.
- 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
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.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
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 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.
Secure coding standards explicitly require proper neutralization of command arguments, directly eliminating CWE-88.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.