Docker Sandboxes: External Control of System or Configuration Setting
CVE-2026-121614 is a high-severity external control of system or configuration setting vulnerability in Docker Sandboxes from Docker, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 7.1 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an unauthenticated attacker, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. The record lists version 0.50.0 as the first without the flaw, so updating Docker Sandboxes to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.13% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Docker Sandboxes to 0.50.0 or a later version.
- Because the attack needs a user to take part, warn users about unexpected links and files related to this product until it is patched.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docker | Docker Sandboxes | 0.31.0 up to, but not including, 0.50.0 | 0.50.0 |
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.
- Attack requirements
- PresentThe target must be in a specific state or configuration for the attack to work.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- ActiveA user must deliberately do something unusual, such as dismissing a warning.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (docker.com).
Official description
Docker Sandboxes versions 0.31.0 before 0.50.0 do not neutralize repository-controlled Git configuration when running certain host-side Git commands. An attacker who can modify a host repository's Git configuration, for example through a direct-mode sandbox with the repository mounted read-write, can configure core.fsmonitor or another Git setting that invokes an external program. Git can execute the program during a later clone-mode fetch or, starting in version 0.39.0, an sbx kit push initiated by the user. The program runs on the host with the invoking user's permissions, outside the sandbox's microVM isolation. The read-only host repository mount provided to a clone-mode sandbox does not itself allow that sandbox to modify the host repository's Git configuration. The issue is fixed in version 0.50.0.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: External Control of System or Configuration Setting
One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Compartmentalize the system to have safe areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
- Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt at illustrating it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.
- In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of the attacker.
More External Control of System or Configuration Setting vulnerabilities (CWE-15)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in Docker Sandboxes
- 7.3 High severity
- 8.4 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 9.4 Critical severity
- 7.1 High severity
Recent External Control of System or Configuration Setting vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 8.4 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.4 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.