CVE Intelligence
Critical Injection

CVE-2026-46512 — Frogman: Dialplan template parameters interpolated into extensions_custom.conf without escaping

Frogman provides headless PBX control through MCP and HTTP API. Prior to 1.6.2, fm_dialplan_apply accepted template parameters including greeting, dest, url, extension, code, and file, and Tools/DialplanApply.php wrote Dialplan/Templates.php output to extensions_custom.conf while only Dialplan/TemplateBase.php:38-42 sanitized contextName(), allowing a PERM_WRITE caller using confirm:true to inject arbitrary Asterisk directives such as System(), Set(SHELL(...)), Goto, or Macro. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.2.

Published Jul 16, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
  • Technical severity (critical)+10

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.65%
ahead of 50% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Mwtcmi
Frogman
CVSS base
9.9
Critical · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Mwtcmi Frogman).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Mwtcmi Frogman version < 1.6.2 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
9.9 CVSS 3.1 Critical 3.1 6.0 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.9 CVSS 3.1 Critical — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-94 · Code Injection

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · mwtcmi/frogman
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 9.9
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jul 16, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Mwtcmi
every CVE for this vendor
Injection
same class
CWE-94
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-46516 Frogman vulnerable to stored XSS in chat console formatter (escalation vector in multi-admin deployments) Jul 20, 2026
  • CVE-2026-46513 Frogman: API tokens stored in plaintext Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-46514 Frogman: Plaintext passwords and secrets persisted to audit log Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-46515 Frogman: Multiple read-tier tools expose admin-grade data and arbitrary GraphQL execution Jul 16, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-46512 is "Frogman: Dialplan template parameters interpolated into extensions_custom.conf without escaping", rated Critical. It affects Frogman (Mwtcmi); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.9 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.65% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.