Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.53% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-11386High confidence
ubuntu-pro-client Input Validation Vulnerability Leading to Arbitrary APT Directive Injection and Remote Code Execution
Canonical · ubuntu-pro-client (ubuntu-advantage-tools)
9.0CriticalCVSS 3.1
Within 72 hours
Patch availableCritical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Canonical ubuntu-pro-client (ubuntu-advantage-tools) and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
1 package stateRelease-specific package status
ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | ubuntu-advantage-tools | Vendor fix publishedCanonical reports that a fixed source package version has been published. Repository candidate availability is not checked by BlackTree. | 37.2ubuntu~24.04.1 | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Patch available01
What, why and how
An input validation and injection vulnerability exists in Canonical ubuntu-pro-client (formerly ubuntu-advantage-tools). The client constructs APT source files (such as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu-.list or their DEB822 equivalents) using data received directly from the contract server response via the directives.suites[] and directives.aptURL fields. Because the client utilizes Python's str.format() to write these files without performing escaping, validation, or newline character filtering, a malicious or tampered contract response containing embedded newline (\n) characters can successfully inject arbitrary, attacker-controlled deb configuration lines into root-owned APT sources. When combined with the unvalidated additionalPackages[] field—which is passed positionally into a root-executed apt-get install command—an attacker capable of spoofing or manipulating the contract response (e.g., via a compromised internal infrastructure, an intercepted connection utilizing a trusted CA, or local logical bugs) can force the client to fetch and install malicious packages. This ultimately leads to arbitrary code execution with root privileges on the affected system. This component is preinstalled on supported Ubuntu Server releases and auto-attaches by default on cloud provider Ubuntu Pro images.
What
An input validation and injection vulnerability exists in Canonical ubuntu-pro-client (formerly ubuntu-advantage-tools). The client constructs APT source files (such as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu-.list or their DEB822 equivalents) using data received directly from the contract server response via the directives.suites[] and directives.aptURL fields. Because the client utilizes Python's str.format() to write these files without performing escaping, validation, or newline character filtering, a malicious or tampered contract response containing embedded newline (\n) characters can successfully inject arbitrary, attacker-controlled deb configuration lines into root-owned APT sources. When combined with the unvalidated additionalPackages[] field—which is passed positionally into a root-executed apt-get install command—an attacker capable of spoofing or manipulating the contract response (e.g., via a compromised internal infrastructure, an intercepted connection utilizing a trusted CA, or local logical bugs) can force the client to fetch and install malicious packages. This ultimately leads to arbitrary code execution with root privileges on the affected system. This component is preinstalled on supported Ubuntu Server releases and auto-attaches by default on cloud provider Ubuntu Pro images.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
An input validation and injection vulnerability exists in Canonical ubuntu-pro-client (formerly ubuntu-advantage-tools). The client constructs APT source files (such as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu-.list or their DEB822 equivalents) using data received directly from the contract server response via the directives.suites[] and directives.aptURL fields. Because the client utilizes Python's str.format() to write these files without performing escaping, validation, or newline character filtering, a malicious or tampered contract response containing embedded newline (\n) characters can successfully inject arbitrary, attacker-controlled deb configuration lines into root-owned APT sources. When combined with the unvalidated additionalPackages[] field—which is passed positionally into a root-executed apt-get install command—an attacker capable of spoofing or manipulating the contract response (e.g., via a compromised internal infrastructure, an intercepted connection utilizing a trusted CA, or local logical bugs) can force the client to fetch and install malicious packages. This ultimately leads to arbitrary code execution with root privileges on the affected system. This component is preinstalled on supported Ubuntu Server releases and auto-attaches by default on cloud provider Ubuntu Pro images.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Input Validation → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Fixed
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 16 Jul 2026 · Last source change 16 Jul 2026, 13:31 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-44911
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.