CVE-2026-92580 — In AVideo through 29.0, the CloneSite plugin is vulnerable to stored OS command…
In AVideo through 29.0, the CloneSite plugin is vulnerable to stored OS command injection. In plugin/CloneSite/cloneClient.json.php (line ~270) the stored SSH password is substituted into the command string `sshpass -p '{password}' rsync ...` with a plain str_replace and no escaping, so a single quote in the password breaks out of the quoted word and injects arbitrary shell. The password is written through the admin-only endpoint objects/pluginAddDataObject.json.php, whose only CSRF defense (isUntrustedRequest()/forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest()) is a no-op when the request source appears to be loopback — as happens behind a same-host TLS-terminating reverse proxy with $global['trustedProxies'] unset — or when an attacker-controlled application is co-hosted on the same hostname; on HTTPS the session cookie is issued with SameSite=None, so a cross-site POST carries it. An unauthenticated remote attacker can therefore lure an authenticated administrator into planting a malicious password (and an attacker-controlled cloneSiteURL), after which the plugin's documented crontab entry executes the injected command with no further administrator action, as the crontab owner (commonly root or www-data). Exploitation requires the CloneSite plugin to be enabled with the documented crontab installed and one of the above CSRF channels; default single-process Apache deployments are reported as not CSRF-exploitable. This is a residual sink of CVE-2026-41304. The issue is confirmed at master HEAD (8963b6a1); no patched version is available.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- Technical severity (high)+6
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.
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.
- Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet: follow the vendor advisory and map candidate assets by component name.
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
- 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.
Affected products not yet identified by the sources.
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.7 | CVSS 4.0 | High | — | — | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 8.8 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 2.8 | 5.9 | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: disclosure@vulncheck.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
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.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 8.8
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
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 FIRST EPSS score.
- No affected product/version with evidence in the sources.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- 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-2026-92580 is "In AVideo through 29.0, the CloneSite plugin is vulnerable to stored OS command…", rated High. Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity. 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.