refitter: Improper Control of Generation of Code
CVE-2026-63346 is a high-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in refitter from Christianhelle, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.6 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. Affected refitter versions: < 2.1.2. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.35% 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
- Check which version of refitter 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.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christianhelle | refitter | < 2.1.2 | 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.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- 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:N/AC:L/AT:N/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 (github.com).
Official description
Refitter is a tool for generating a C# REST API client using the Refit library. Prior to 2.1.2, the header parameter name in `parameters[].name` with `in: header` is emitted verbatim into a Refit `[Header("<name>")]` attribute string without escaping quotation marks. An attacker-influenced OpenAPI description can pass default validation without `--skip-validation` and break out from the parameter-list position by closing the parameter and method syntax, attribute, interface, and namespace. The generated file can remain valid C# while containing a top-level file class with a `[ModuleInitializer]` method, which executes attacker code when the compiled assembly is loaded at application startup, even if the client is never called. Query `AliasAs` and enum/default value sinks are escaped; this flaw is in header-name attribute-string emission. The behavior was verified with Refitter 2.0.0 and .NET 8. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.2.
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: poc, 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 refitter
- 8.6 High severity
- 8.6 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.6 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.0 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.