BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-58474High confidence

whichllm < 0.5.16 Code Injection via run and snippet commands

Andyyyy64 · whichllm

8.6HighCVSS 4.0
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-66642

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

whichllm before 0.5.16 contains a code injection vulnerability in the run and snippet commands that allows a remote attacker who controls a HuggingFace repository to achieve arbitrary code execution by crafting a malicious GGUF filename containing double quotes or other special characters. The script generation function in cli.py interpolates HuggingFace-derived values, including GGUF variant filenames from the Hub API siblings rfilename field, directly into Python source code without escaping, allowing the crafted filename to break out of the generated string literal and execute injected code on the user's machine before any model download occurs.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
8.6 · CVSS 4.0
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
01

What, why and how

whichllm before 0.5.16 contains a code injection vulnerability in the run and snippet commands that allows a remote attacker who controls a HuggingFace repository to achieve arbitrary code execution by crafting a malicious GGUF filename containing double quotes or other special characters. The script generation function in cli.py interpolates HuggingFace-derived values, including GGUF variant filenames from the Hub API siblings rfilename field, directly into Python source code without escaping, allowing the crafted filename to break out of the generated string literal and execute injected code on the user's machine before any model download occurs.

What

whichllm before 0.5.16 contains a code injection vulnerability in the run and snippet commands that allows a remote attacker who controls a HuggingFace repository to achieve arbitrary code execution by crafting a malicious GGUF filename containing double quotes or other special characters. The script generation function in cli.py interpolates HuggingFace-derived values, including GGUF variant filenames from the Hub API siblings rfilename field, directly into Python source code without escaping, allowing the crafted filename to break out of the generated string literal and execute injected code on the user's machine before any model download occurs.

Why

Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.

What

whichllm before 0.5.16 contains a code injection vulnerability in the run and snippet commands that allows a remote attacker who controls a HuggingFace repository to achieve arbitrary code execution by crafting a malicious GGUF filename containing double quotes or other special characters. The script generation function in cli.py interpolates HuggingFace-derived values, including GGUF variant filenames from the Hub API siblings rfilename field, directly into Python source code without escaping, allowing the crafted filename to break out of the generated string literal and execute injected code on the user's machine before any model download occurs.

Why

Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. 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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

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 Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') → execute code or commands in the affected security context
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
Active interaction required
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
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:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: 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.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIActiveUser interaction: A user must take a deliberate action for exploitation to succeed.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
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.
NetworkUnauthenticatedRemote code executionCWE-94
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-66642Official EUVD mapping

whichllm before 0.5.16 contains a code injection vulnerability in the run and snippet commands that allows a remote attacker who controls a HuggingFace repository to achieve arbitrary code execution by crafting a malicious GGUF filename containing double quotes or other special characters. The script generation function in cli.py interpolates HuggingFace-derived values, including GGUF variant filenames from the Hub API siblings rfilename field, directly into Python source code without escaping, allowing the crafted filename to break out of the generated string literal and execute injected code on the user's machine before any model download occurs.

Official EUVD record
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
< 0.5.16
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. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 26 Aug 2026 · Last source change 29 Aug 2026, 11:47 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-27
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-66642
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD received

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →
  1. ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-66642 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-66642"}
    ENISA EUVD ↗
  2. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-66642↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
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.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-58474 · cve.blacktree.nl