Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.30% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-19591High confidence
If a user opens an attacker-prepared repository and Codex follows its instructions, Codex can run a file-writing Git command without requesting user approval
OpenAI · Codex CLI
8.8HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, 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 OpenAI Codex CLI 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.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
OpenAI Codex CLI for Windows, macOS, and Linux and Codex Desktop for Windows and macOS misclassified certain PowerShell commands as safe because their command-safety parser interpreted PowerShell's stop-parsing token (--%) differently than PowerShell itself. If a user opens an attacker-prepared repository and Codex follows its instructions, Codex can run a file-writing Git command without requesting user approval. On macOS and Linux, exploitation additionally requires separately installed PowerShell Core (pwsh) to be invoked. If filesystem protections permit the write, the command can modify Codex's configuration. If Codex later loads the modified configuration, it can launch an attacker-controlled MCP server and execute code with the user's privileges, allowing it to read, change, or delete files accessible to that account. The approval bypass does not disable filesystem sandboxing; the default filesystem sandbox on macOS and Linux can prevent writes outside permitted locations.
What
OpenAI Codex CLI for Windows, macOS, and Linux and Codex Desktop for Windows and macOS misclassified certain PowerShell commands as safe because their command-safety parser interpreted PowerShell's stop-parsing token (--%) differently than PowerShell itself. If a user opens an attacker-prepared repository and Codex follows its instructions, Codex can run a file-writing Git command without requesting user approval. On macOS and Linux, exploitation additionally requires separately installed PowerShell Core (pwsh) to be invoked. If filesystem protections permit the write, the command can modify Codex's configuration. If Codex later loads the modified configuration, it can launch an attacker-controlled MCP server and execute code with the user's privileges, allowing it to read, change, or delete files accessible to that account. The approval bypass does not disable filesystem sandboxing; the default filesystem sandbox on macOS and Linux can prevent writes outside permitted locations.
Why
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta, or control character sequences when they are sent to a downstream component.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
OpenAI Codex CLI for Windows, macOS, and Linux and Codex Desktop for Windows and macOS misclassified certain PowerShell commands as safe because their command-safety parser interpreted PowerShell's stop-parsing token (--%) differently than PowerShell itself. If a user opens an attacker-prepared repository and Codex follows its instructions, Codex can run a file-writing Git command without requesting user approval. On macOS and Linux, exploitation additionally requires separately installed PowerShell Core (pwsh) to be invoked. If filesystem protections permit the write, the command can modify Codex's configuration. If Codex later loads the modified configuration, it can launch an attacker-controlled MCP server and execute code with the user's privileges, allowing it to read, change, or delete files accessible to that account. The approval bypass does not disable filesystem sandboxing; the default filesystem sandbox on macOS and Linux can prevent writes outside permitted locations.
Why
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta, or control character sequences when they are sent to a downstream component.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a 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 Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-150 ↗
CWE-150: Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences. The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta, or control character sequences when they are sent to a downstream component.
- 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:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/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.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's 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
- Affected
- 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 1 Sept 2026 · Last source change 2 Sept 2026, 18:34 UTC · CWE-150 · Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCISA ADP
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-02
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-69394
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
- SeveritySeverity changed from Unknown to High.CISA ADP ↗
- Before
- Unknown
- After
- High
- CVSS scoreCVSS score changed from not recorded to 8.8 (CVSS 3.1 · CISA ADP · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).CISA ADP ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- 8.8 (CVSS 3.1 · CISA ADP · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-69394 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-69394"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.