Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.36% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-54757High confidence
Trestle has Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) via Recursive Template Re-evaluation of Untrusted Data
oscal-compass · compliance-trestle
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-JW39-3688-R4RX ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.8HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh 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
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs oscal-compass compliance-trestle and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges5 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPIcompliance-trestle | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 3.12.4 | 3.12.4 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| PyPIcompliance-trestle | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 4.0.0; fixed 4.1.0 | 4.1.0 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| PyPIcompliance-trestle | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 3.12.4; introduced 4.0.0; fixed 4.1.0 | 3.12.4, 4.1.0 | OSV record ↗source linked ecosystem record · 10 Sep 2026 |
| pipcompliance-trestle | <= 3.12.3 | 3.12.4 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 28 Aug 2026 |
| pipcompliance-trestle | >= 4.0.0, < 4.1.0 | 4.1.0 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 28 Aug 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-54757 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitycompliance-trestle: Trestle: Remote Code Execution via Server-Side Template Injection
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- compliance/openshift-compliance-content-rhel8 as a component of File Integrity Operator
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Trestle, a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. This vulnerability involves server-side template injection (SSTI) due to the MDCleanInclude and MDSectionInclude Jinja2 tags improperly re-parsing untrusted Markdown content as template source code. An attacker who can control content rendered by Trestle, such as a crafted Markdown file, can inject a Jinja2 expression. This allows for remote code execution, enabling the attacker to run arbitrary operating system commands within the Trestle process.
- Remediation
- Affected
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Compliance-trestle (Trestle) is a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. In versions before 3.12.4 and versions 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, Trestle is vulnerable to server-side template injection that can lead to remote code execution. This occurs because the MDCleanInclude and MDSectionInclude Jinja2 tags re-parse untrusted Markdown content as template source code using a non-sandboxed jinja2.Environment. An attacker who controls content that Trestle renders, such as a crafted workspace Markdown file, a third-party SSP document, or a YAML lookup-table value, can inject a Jinja2 expression that traverses Python object internals to execute arbitrary operating system commands in the context of the Trestle process. This issue is fixed in versions 3.12.4 and 4.1.0.
What
Compliance-trestle (Trestle) is a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. In versions before 3.12.4 and versions 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, Trestle is vulnerable to server-side template injection that can lead to remote code execution. This occurs because the MDCleanInclude and MDSectionInclude Jinja2 tags re-parse untrusted Markdown content as template source code using a non-sandboxed jinja2.Environment. An attacker who controls content that Trestle renders, such as a crafted workspace Markdown file, a third-party SSP document, or a YAML lookup-table value, can inject a Jinja2 expression that traverses Python object internals to execute arbitrary operating system commands in the context of the Trestle process. This issue is fixed in versions 3.12.4 and 4.1.0.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
Compliance-trestle (Trestle) is a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. In versions before 3.12.4 and versions 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, Trestle is vulnerable to server-side template injection that can lead to remote code execution. This occurs because the MDCleanInclude and MDSectionInclude Jinja2 tags re-parse untrusted Markdown content as template source code using a non-sandboxed jinja2.Environment. An attacker who controls content that Trestle renders, such as a crafted workspace Markdown file, a third-party SSP document, or a YAML lookup-table value, can inject a Jinja2 expression that traverses Python object internals to execute arbitrary operating system commands in the context of the Trestle process. This issue is fixed in versions 3.12.4 and 4.1.0.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through local access 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
- local access → Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Local
- 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-94 ↗
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.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.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. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- compliance/openshift-compliance-content-rhel8 as a component of File Integrity Operator
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 25 Aug 2026 · Last source change 26 Aug 2026, 12:21 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-26
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-66209
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-66209 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-66209"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.