OmniRoute: Improper Control of Generation of Code
CVE-2026-88062 is a critical-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in OmniRoute from Diegosouzapw, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 9.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected OmniRoute versions: < 3.8.49. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 1.42% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 73% of scored CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Check which version of OmniRoute 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.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diegosouzapw | OmniRoute | < 3.8.49 | 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
- PresentThe target must be in a specific state or configuration for the attack to work.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- 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)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
OmniRoute is an open-source AI gateway providing a single endpoint for multiple model providers. In 3.8.49 and earlier, the OmniRoute POST /api/acp/agents custom ACP agent endpoint accepted attacker-controlled binary and versionCommand values and used only a self-consistency check before execFileSync executed the selected interpreter and arguments. The same request called refreshAgentCache, and resolveVersionProbe accepted the matched command before the execFileSync sink ran it. The tokenizeVersionCommand function and DISALLOWED_VERSION_COMMAND_CHARS filter rejected a limited set of shell metacharacters but still allowed interpreter evaluation arguments. The isAuthenticated function relied on isAuthRequired, which accepted anonymous requests when requireLogin was false, while api/acp/ was absent from LOCAL_ONLY_API_PREFIXES and SPAWN_CAPABLE_PREFIXES. With requireLogin=false or during a fresh-instance bootstrap window, a remote anonymous request could supply an interpreter evaluation argument and execute arbitrary code in the server container. With requireLogin=true and a configured management password, exploitation instead required a management session or management-scoped API key. No fixed version is available as of this review.
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
Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.7 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.