An input validation and injection vulnerability exists in Canonical ubuntu-pro-client…
CVE-2026-11386 is a critical-severity improper input validation vulnerability in ubuntu-pro-client (ubuntu-advantage-tools) from Canonical, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.0 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists version 37.3 as the first without the flaw, so updating ubuntu-pro-client (ubuntu-advantage-tools) to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.53% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Update ubuntu-pro-client (ubuntu-advantage-tools) to 37.3 or a later version.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canonical | ubuntu-pro-client (ubuntu-advantage-tools) | before 37.3 | 37.3 |
| Canonical | Ubuntu 26.04 LTS | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Canonical | Ubuntu 24.04 LTS | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Canonical | Ubuntu 22.04 LTS | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Canonical | Ubuntu 20.04 LTS | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Canonical | Ubuntu 18.04 LTS | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Canonical | Ubuntu 16.04 LTS | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Canonical | Ubuntu 14.04 LTS | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
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
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- 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
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (ubuntu.com).
Official description
An input validation and injection vulnerability exists in Canonical ubuntu-pro-client (formerly ubuntu-advantage-tools). The client constructs APT source files (such as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu-.list or their DEB822 equivalents) using data received directly from the contract server response via the directives.suites[] and directives.aptURL fields. Because the client utilizes Python's str.format() to write these files without performing escaping, validation, or newline character filtering, a malicious or tampered contract response containing embedded newline (\n) characters can successfully inject arbitrary, attacker-controlled deb configuration lines into root-owned APT sources. When combined with the unvalidated additionalPackages[] field—which is passed positionally into a root-executed apt-get install command—an attacker capable of spoofing or manipulating the contract response (e.g., via a compromised internal infrastructure, an intercepted connection utilizing a trusted CA, or local logical bugs) can force the client to fetch and install malicious packages. This ultimately leads to arbitrary code execution with root privileges on the affected system. This component is preinstalled on supported Ubuntu Server releases and auto-attaches by default on cloud provider Ubuntu Pro images.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
References
Other references
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.0 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.