CVE-2026-75858: DeepSeek TUI — HIGH

Q: Is CVE-2026-75858 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-75858 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

Q: How to fix CVE-2026-75858?

Update to patched version: DeepSeek TUI 0.8.64, DeepSeek TUI 0.8.64, DeepSeek TUI 0.8.41.

Q: What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-75858?

CVE-2026-75858 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.27%.

CodeWhale (packages codewhale / codewhale-tui) versions >= 0.8.41 and < 0.8.64 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the rlm_eval tool. The tool's approval_requirement() returns ApprovalRequirement::Auto, which the engine treats as 'never prompt,' causing arbitrary model-supplied Python...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package	Ecosystem	Vulnerable Range	Patched
DeepSeek TUI	npm	>= 0.8.41, < 0.8.64	`0.8.64`
DeepSeek TUI	cargo	>= 0.8.41, < 0.8.64	`0.8.64`
DeepSeek TUI	npm	>= 0.8.33, < 0.8.41	`0.8.41`
DeepSeek TUI	cargo	>= 0.8.33, <= 0.8.41	No patch

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1

7.8 / 10

EPSS

0.3%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Higher than 19% of all CVEs

Source: EPSS v3 — FIRST.org

Exploitation Status

No known exploitation

Sophistication

N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV Local

AC Low

PR None

UI Required

S Unchanged

C High

I High

A High

What should I do?

Patch available

Update DeepSeek TUI to version 0.8.64

Update DeepSeek TUI to version 0.8.41

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-75858?

CodeWhale (packages codewhale / codewhale-tui) versions >= 0.8.41 and < 0.8.64 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the rlm_eval tool. The tool's approval_requirement() returns ApprovalRequirement::Auto, which the engine treats as 'never prompt,' causing arbitrary model-supplied Python code to run in a python3 interpreter without consulting the user's configured --approval-policy and without any approval prompt or audit step. An attacker can induce the agent to execute arbitrary code via prompt injection in untrusted content the agent reads (a web page, fetched URL, repository file, or MCP tool result); the companion rlm_open tool can stage such content. Code runs on the user's machine at the user's privilege level. Fixed in 0.8.64.

Is CVE-2026-75858 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-75858 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-75858?

Update to patched version: DeepSeek TUI 0.8.64, DeepSeek TUI 0.8.64, DeepSeek TUI 0.8.41.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-75858?

CVE-2026-75858 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.27%.

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

CodeWhale (packages codewhale / codewhale-tui) versions >= 0.8.41 and < 0.8.64 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the rlm_eval tool. The tool's approval_requirement() returns ApprovalRequirement::Auto, which the engine treats as 'never prompt,' causing arbitrary model-supplied Python code to run in a python3 interpreter without consulting the user's configured --approval-policy and without any approval prompt or audit step. An attacker can induce the agent to execute arbitrary code via prompt injection in untrusted content the agent reads (a web page, fetched URL, repository file, or MCP tool result); the companion rlm_open tool can stage such content. Code runs on the user's machine at the user's privilege level. Fixed in 0.8.64.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-862 Missing Authorization Primary CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') Primary CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') Primary CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

CWE-862 — Missing Authorization: The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

[Architecture and Design] Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
[Architecture and Design] Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.