AI Threat Alert
CVE-2026-100844
HIGHMONAI before 1.6.0 is vulnerable to OS command injection in the nnUNetV2Runner component (monai.apps.nnunet.nnunetv2_runner). User-controlled values taken from the YAML configuration file (notably dataset_name_or_id) and from CLI/kwargs arguments are concatenated into a command string without...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
No patch available
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-100844?
MONAI before 1.6.0 is vulnerable to OS command injection in the nnUNetV2Runner component (monai.apps.nnunet.nnunetv2_runner). User-controlled values taken from the YAML configuration file (notably dataset_name_or_id) and from CLI/kwargs arguments are concatenated into a command string without quoting or validation and then passed to subprocess with shell=True, so shell metacharacters (e.g., ';' on Linux, '&' on Windows) are interpreted. If a victim loads and processes a crafted configuration file — for example by instantiating nnUNetV2Runner with the malicious YAML and invoking a training/validation job such as train_single_model() — arbitrary commands are executed with the privileges of the user running the job.
Is CVE-2026-100844 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-100844 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-100844?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-100844?
CVE-2026-100844 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.4 (HIGH).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
MONAI before 1.6.0 is vulnerable to OS command injection in the nnUNetV2Runner component (monai.apps.nnunet.nnunetv2_runner). User-controlled values taken from the YAML configuration file (notably dataset_name_or_id) and from CLI/kwargs arguments are concatenated into a command string without quoting or validation and then passed to subprocess with shell=True, so shell metacharacters (e.g., ';' on Linux, '&' on Windows) are interpreted. If a victim loads and processes a crafted configuration file — for example by instantiating nnUNetV2Runner with the malicious YAML and invoking a training/validation job such as train_single_model() — arbitrary commands are executed with the privileges of the user running the job.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-78 — Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'): The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
- [Architecture and Design] If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- [Architecture and Design, Operation] Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H