CVE-2026-30310 (GCVE-0-2026-30310)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-03-31 00:00 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:39
VLAI?
Summary
In its design for automatic terminal command execution, Sixth offers two options: Execute safe commands and Execute all commands. The description for the former states that commands determined by the model to be safe will be automatically executed, whereas if the model judges a command to be potentially destructive, it still requires user approval. However, this design is highly susceptible to prompt injection attacks. An attacker can employ a generic template to wrap any malicious command and mislead the model into misclassifying it as a 'safe' command, thereby bypassing the user approval requirement and resulting in arbitrary command execution.
Severity ?
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CWE
  • n/a
Assigner
References
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
              "baseScore": 9.8,
              "baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
              "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
              "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2026-30310",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "yes"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "total"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2026-04-01T18:39:07.654899Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "problemTypes": [
          {
            "descriptions": [
              {
                "cweId": "CWE-77",
                "description": "CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027)",
                "lang": "en",
                "type": "CWE"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2026-04-01T18:39:56.827Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "n/a",
          "vendor": "n/a",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "In its design for automatic terminal command execution, Sixth offers two options: Execute safe commands and Execute all commands. The description for the former states that commands determined by the model to be safe will be automatically executed, whereas if the model judges a command to be potentially destructive, it still requires user approval. However, this design is highly susceptible to prompt injection attacks. An attacker can employ a generic template to wrap any malicious command and mislead the model into misclassifying it as a \u0027safe\u0027 command, thereby bypassing the user approval requirement and resulting in arbitrary command execution."
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "description": "n/a",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "text"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-03-31T13:32:25.751Z",
        "orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
        "shortName": "mitre"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "url": "https://trysixth.com/"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://github.com/Secsys-FDU/LLM-Tool-Calling-CVEs/issues/12"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
    "assignerShortName": "mitre",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-30310",
    "datePublished": "2026-03-31T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-03-04T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-04-01T18:39:56.827Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-30310\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"cve@mitre.org\",\"published\":\"2026-03-31T14:16:11.390\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-04-01T19:16:30.307\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Awaiting Analysis\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"In its design for automatic terminal command execution, Sixth offers two options: Execute safe commands and Execute all commands. The description for the former states that commands determined by the model to be safe will be automatically executed, whereas if the model judges a command to be potentially destructive, it still requires user approval. However, this design is highly susceptible to prompt injection attacks. An attacker can employ a generic template to wrap any malicious command and mislead the model into misclassifying it as a \u0027safe\u0027 command, thereby bypassing the user approval requirement and resulting in arbitrary command execution.\"}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H\",\"baseScore\":9.8,\"baseSeverity\":\"CRITICAL\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"UNCHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"integrityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"HIGH\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":3.9,\"impactScore\":5.9}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-77\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/Secsys-FDU/LLM-Tool-Calling-CVEs/issues/12\",\"source\":\"cve@mitre.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://trysixth.com/\",\"source\":\"cve@mitre.org\"}]}}",
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 9.8, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"CRITICAL\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H\", \"integrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-30310\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"yes\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"total\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-04-01T18:39:07.654899Z\"}}}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-77\", \"description\": \"CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027)\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-04-01T18:39:52.985Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"n/a\", \"product\": \"n/a\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"n/a\"}]}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://trysixth.com/\"}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/Secsys-FDU/LLM-Tool-Calling-CVEs/issues/12\"}], \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"In its design for automatic terminal command execution, Sixth offers two options: Execute safe commands and Execute all commands. The description for the former states that commands determined by the model to be safe will be automatically executed, whereas if the model judges a command to be potentially destructive, it still requires user approval. However, this design is highly susceptible to prompt injection attacks. An attacker can employ a generic template to wrap any malicious command and mislead the model into misclassifying it as a \u0027safe\u0027 command, thereby bypassing the user approval requirement and resulting in arbitrary command execution.\"}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"text\", \"description\": \"n/a\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca\", \"shortName\": \"mitre\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-03-31T13:32:25.751Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-30310\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-04-01T18:39:56.827Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-03-04T00:00:00.000Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-03-31T00:00:00.000Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"mitre\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.2"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.