CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-57170NVD status: Deferred

compliance-trestle: Improper Control of Generation of Code

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-57170 is a high-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in compliance-trestle from Oscal-compass, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 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. Affected compliance-trestle versions: < 3.12.4; >= 4.0.0, < 4.1.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.24% 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. Check which version of compliance-trestle you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Oscal-compasscompliance-trestle< 3.12.4; >= 4.0.0, < 4.1.0Not 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
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
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).

Official description

Compliance-trestle (Trestle) is a Python SDK and command-line tool for managing OSCAL compliance documents. In versions prior to 3.12.4 and 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, the custom Jinja2 include tags mdsection_include and md_clean_include re-parse the content of an included Markdown file as Jinja2 template code in a non-sandboxed environment, allowing server-side template injection that can lead to arbitrary code execution. The MDSectionInclude and MDCleanInclude tags in Trestle/core/jinja/tags.py pass included file content to Parser(self.environment, ...).parse(), splicing it into the host template's compilation, and the environment is a plain jinja2.Environment rather than a SandboxedEnvironment, so any expressions in the file are evaluated with full access to the usual SSTI gadget chain. Because Trestle's Markdown writers emit OSCAL prose and component-description fields verbatim, applying delimiter neutralization only to parameter tables, attacker-controlled OSCAL data such as a control statement, part prose, or component description containing Jinja2 syntax flows into an included Markdown file and is executed when the include tag re-parses it. This issue is fixed in version 4.1.0.

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 compliance-trestle

All compliance-trestle vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.