goose: Improper Control of Generation of Code
CVE-2026-72718 is a high-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in goose from Aaif-goose, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 7.0 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. Affected goose versions: < 1.44.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.22% 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 goose 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aaif-goose | goose | < 1.44.0 | 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
- 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
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- 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:N/PR:L/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
goose is general-purpose AI agent that runs on your machine. Prior to 1.44.0, the `goose review` command runs the system `git` executable to gather the diff for review without stripping attacker-controlled Git configuration. A malicious repository whose `.git/config` sets [`core] fsmonitor = <command>` causes Git to execute that command on the host during the index refresh performed by `git diff HEAD`. The command runs before goose contacts a model and without a submitted prompt, model call, tool approval, or trust prompt. The context-gathering Git process is not sandboxed and is outside goose's tool-permission model. Arbitrary commands run with the privileges and environment of the user running goose, allowing file access or modification and exfiltration of environment secrets and provider API keys. The vulnerable Git invocations are built by git_command() in crates/goose-cli/src/commands/review/handler.rs and are used by touched_files() and collect_diff() for `git diff --name-only HEAD` and `git diff HEAD`. This issue is fixed in version 1.44.0.
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
- 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 vulnerabilities in goose
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 9.6 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.