Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.35% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-9279High confidence
Shell command injection in Logseq
logseq · logseq
8.7HighCVSS 4.0
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 logseq logseq 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.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Logseq exposes an IPC handler that allows the renderer process to execute shell commands. While an allowlist restricts the command name (e.g. `git`, `pandoc`, `grep`), the argument string is concatenated with the command and passed to `child_process.spawn` with the `shell: true` option, allowing shell metacharacters in the arguments to bypass the allowlist. An attacker with JavaScript execution in the renderer (e.g. via XSS or a malicious plugin) can execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the Logseq process, leading to remote code execution on the host. While only version v0.10.15 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable, status of other versions is unknown since this issue was not addressed by a patch.
What
Logseq exposes an IPC handler that allows the renderer process to execute shell commands. While an allowlist restricts the command name (e.g. `git`, `pandoc`, `grep`), the argument string is concatenated with the command and passed to `child_process.spawn` with the `shell: true` option, allowing shell metacharacters in the arguments to bypass the allowlist. An attacker with JavaScript execution in the renderer (e.g. via XSS or a malicious plugin) can execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the Logseq process, leading to remote code execution on the host. While only version v0.10.15 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable, status of other versions is unknown since this issue was not addressed by a patch.
Why
Untrusted input is incorporated into an operating-system command without safe parameter handling.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
Logseq exposes an IPC handler that allows the renderer process to execute shell commands. While an allowlist restricts the command name (e.g. `git`, `pandoc`, `grep`), the argument string is concatenated with the command and passed to `child_process.spawn` with the `shell: true` option, allowing shell metacharacters in the arguments to bypass the allowlist. An attacker with JavaScript execution in the renderer (e.g. via XSS or a malicious plugin) can execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the Logseq process, leading to remote code execution on the host. While only version v0.10.15 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable, status of other versions is unknown since this issue was not addressed by a patch.
Why
Untrusted input is incorporated into an operating-system command without safe parameter handling.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or 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 Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- 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-78 ↗
CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'). The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is 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:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: 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.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCHighSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SIHighSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.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. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- logseq: ≤ 0.10.15
- 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 9 Jun 2026 · Last source change 9 Jun 2026, 14:38 UTC · CWE-78 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-35435
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
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
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.