Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.94% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-86169High confidence
Axolotl before 0.19.0 Remote Code Execution via Multipack Patching
axolotl-ai-cloud · axolotl
8.7HighCVSS 4.0
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 axolotl-ai-cloud axolotl 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
Axolotl before 0.19.0 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in the multipack patch path where trust_remote_code defaults to None instead of False, causing the security guard to be bypassed. Attackers can execute arbitrary Python code by crafting a malicious Hugging Face model repository selected as base_model, which is loaded with hardcoded trust_remote_code=True during AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained.
What
Axolotl before 0.19.0 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in the multipack patch path where trust_remote_code defaults to None instead of False, causing the security guard to be bypassed. Attackers can execute arbitrary Python code by crafting a malicious Hugging Face model repository selected as base_model, which is loaded with hardcoded trust_remote_code=True during AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained.
Why
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
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
Axolotl before 0.19.0 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in the multipack patch path where trust_remote_code defaults to None instead of False, causing the security guard to be bypassed. Attackers can execute arbitrary Python code by crafting a malicious Hugging Face model repository selected as base_model, which is loaded with hardcoded trust_remote_code=True during AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained.
Why
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
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 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 → Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Passive 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-829 ↗
CWE-829: Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere. The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
- 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:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon 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.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.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.
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
- axolotl: 0 < 0.19.0
- Fixed
- axolotl: 0.19.0
- 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 5 Sept 2026 · Last source change 24 Sept 2026, 14:21 UTC · CWE-829 · Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-06
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-71971
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
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
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added remediation: github.com/3858.CNA ↗
- Before
- no authoritative guidance recorded
- After
- remediation: github.com/3858
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- axolotl: ≤ 0.18.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- axolotl: < 0.19.0 · Fixed: axolotl: 0.19.0
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.CNA ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Patch available
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- ≤ 0.18.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- axolotl: ≤ 0.18.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-71971 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-71971"}
- 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.