CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-100839NVD status: Deferred

contrast: Improper Control of Generation of Code

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-100839 is a high-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in contrast from Edgelesssys, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.4 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists version 1.18.0 as the first without the flaw, so updating contrast to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.15% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update contrast to 1.18.0 or a later version.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Edgelesssyscontrastbefore 1.18.01.18.0

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
ChangedThe attack can reach beyond the vulnerable component into other systems.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
NoneAvailability is not affected.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (vulncheck.com).

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 4.08.4HighCNA (vulncheck.com)
CVSS 3.18.4HighCNA (vulncheck.com)

Official description

Contrast is a confidential-computing runtime for Kubernetes. In versions before 1.18.0, the guest kernel's ACPI/AML handling is vulnerable to an AML injection attack ("BadAML"). ACPI tables containing AML bytecode are passed from the untrusted host (QEMU) to the guest firmware (OVMF) and on to the Linux kernel, whose AML interpreter executes them. An attacker controlling the host — an assumed adversary in Contrast's threat model — can craft a table with malicious, Turing-complete AML bytecode that the guest kernel interprets with access to the full guest memory, including private pages, resulting in arbitrary code execution and disclosure or modification of confidential guest data. The issue affects the AMD SEV-SNP platforms Metal-QEMU-SNP and Metal-QEMU-SNP-GPU; Metal-QEMU-TDX is not affected because ACPI table contents are measured into RTMR 0 by OVMF on Intel TDX. Version v1.18.0 mitigates the attack by sandboxing the kernel AML interpreter so that it cannot read or write private memory pages. This weakness is not specific to Contrast but is generic to Confidential Computing setups that expose the ACPI interface to the host.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Control of Generation of Code

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.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Run your code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

More Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities (CWE-94)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in contrast

All contrast vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.