CoPilot: Improper Control of Generation of Code
CVE-2026-61707 is a critical-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in CoPilot from Socfortress, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.0 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. Affected CoPilot versions: < 0.1.76. 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.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Check which version of CoPilot you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Socfortress | CoPilot | < 0.1.76 | 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
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- RequiredA user must take an action such as opening a file or link.
- 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:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
SOCFortress CoPilot focuses on providing a single pane of glass for all your security operations needs. Prior to 0.1.76, in the reported deployment, case-report templates uploaded by `customer_user`, the lowest-privilege portal role, are later executed by non-sandboxed Jinja2 engines when an admin or analyst generates a report. The `/case-report-template/upload` route in `backend/app/incidents/routes/db_operations.py` validates only the filename-derived MIME type, not the template content. Templates share a global store without customer_code scoping, and `customer_user` can also list, download and delete them, allowing an attacker to replace a legitimate default template under the same name. In `backend/app/incidents/services/reports.py`, `render_document_with_context` uses `DocxTemplate` without a sandbox; in `backend/app/incidents/services/reports_pdf.py`, `render_html_template` uses a non-sandboxed `Environment` without autoescaping. Normal privileged requests to `POST /api/incidents/report/generate-report-docx` or `/generate-report-pdf` therefore evaluate attacker-controlled Jinja expressions as Python on the backend. The reported deployment executes commands as root, exposing all tenants' incident and SIEM data and stored connector credentials. The HTML/PDF wkhtmltopdf renderer additionally permits local-file reads and requests to internal services. This issue is fixed in version 0.1.76.
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
- 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 references
Other vulnerabilities in CoPilot
- 7.5 High severity
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 9.3 Critical severity
- 9.4 Critical severity
- 9.9 Critical severity
- 8.5 High severity
Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.