Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.24% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE Intelligenceoscal-compass · compliance-trestle
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-MR95-65J8-9MXP ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
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 · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIcompliance-trestle | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 4.0.0; fixed 4.1.0 | 4.1.0 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 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 · 1 Oct 2026 |
| pipcompliance-trestle | < 3.12.4 | 3.12.4 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 24 Sep 2026 |
| pipcompliance-trestle | >= 4.0.0, < 4.1.0 | 4.1.0 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 24 Sep 2026 |
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by productCompliance-trestle (Trestle) is a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. In versions prior to 3.12.4 and 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, the custom Jinja2 include tags mdsection_include and md_clean_include re-parse the content of an included Markdown file as Jinja2 template code in a non-sandboxed environment, allowing server-side template injection that can lead to arbitrary code execution. The MDSectionInclude and MDCleanInclude tags in Trestle/core/jinja/tags.py pass included file content to Parser(self.environment, ...).parse(), splicing it into the host template's compilation, and the environment is a plain jinja2.Environment rather than a SandboxedEnvironment, so any expressions in the file are evaluated with full access to the usual SSTI gadget chain. Because Trestle's Markdown writers emit OSCAL prose and component-description fields verbatim, applying delimiter neutralization only to parameter tables, attacker-controlled OSCAL data such as a control statement, part prose, or component description containing Jinja2 syntax flows into an included Markdown file and is executed when the include tag re-parses it. This issue is fixed in version 4.1.0.
Compliance-trestle (Trestle) is a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. In versions prior to 3.12.4 and 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, the custom Jinja2 include tags mdsection_include and md_clean_include re-parse the content of an included Markdown file as Jinja2 template code in a non-sandboxed environment, allowing server-side template injection that can lead to arbitrary code execution. The MDSectionInclude and MDCleanInclude tags in Trestle/core/jinja/tags.py pass included file content to Parser(self.environment, ...).parse(), splicing it into the host template's compilation, and the environment is a plain jinja2.Environment rather than a SandboxedEnvironment, so any expressions in the file are evaluated with full access to the usual SSTI gadget chain. Because Trestle's Markdown writers emit OSCAL prose and component-description fields verbatim, applying delimiter neutralization only to parameter tables, attacker-controlled OSCAL data such as a control statement, part prose, or component description containing Jinja2 syntax flows into an included Markdown file and is executed when the include tag re-parses it. This issue is fixed in version 4.1.0.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
Compliance-trestle (Trestle) is a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. In versions prior to 3.12.4 and 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, the custom Jinja2 include tags mdsection_include and md_clean_include re-parse the content of an included Markdown file as Jinja2 template code in a non-sandboxed environment, allowing server-side template injection that can lead to arbitrary code execution. The MDSectionInclude and MDCleanInclude tags in Trestle/core/jinja/tags.py pass included file content to Parser(self.environment, ...).parse(), splicing it into the host template's compilation, and the environment is a plain jinja2.Environment rather than a SandboxedEnvironment, so any expressions in the file are evaluated with full access to the usual SSTI gadget chain. Because Trestle's Markdown writers emit OSCAL prose and component-description fields verbatim, applying delimiter neutralization only to parameter tables, attacker-controlled OSCAL data such as a control statement, part prose, or component description containing Jinja2 syntax flows into an included Markdown file and is executed when the include tag re-parses it. This issue is fixed in version 4.1.0.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
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:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 25 Aug 2026 · Last source change 28 Aug 2026, 22:41 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.