Trigger.dev is a platform for building and deploying fully managed AI agents and workflows.
CVE-2026-73658 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in trigger.dev from Triggerdotdev, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.2 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected trigger.dev versions: >= 4.4.2, < 4.5.0-rc.5. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.41% 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 trigger.dev 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.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triggerdotdev | trigger.dev | >= 4.4.2, < 4.5.0-rc.5 | 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
- HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- 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
- NoneAvailability is not affected.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
Trigger.dev is a platform for building and deploying fully managed AI agents and workflows. From 4.4.2 until 4.5.0-rc.5, Aws4FetchClient.buildUrl() and Aws4FetchClient.presign() in apps/webapp/app/v3/objectStoreClient.server.ts assign user-controlled packet keys to URL.pathname, while apps/webapp/app/routes/api.v1.packets.$.ts accepts params["*"] without rejecting dot segments and uses findResource: async () => 1 without per-resource ownership validation. WHATWG path normalization collapses .. segments before signing, allowing a caller with a valid environment API key to obtain presigned URLs for another tenant's object-store keys and read or overwrite task payloads. This issue is fixed in version 4.5.0-rc.5.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
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 trigger.dev
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 7.9 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.