CVE-2026-10539
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA Control-M/Server communication command does not sufficiently filter or sanitize user-supplied input. Under certain conditions, this issue may allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute unauthorized commands on the affected server, potentially leading to compromise of the server. This vulnerability affects Control-M/Server versions 9.0.20.x to 9.0.21.200 (included) and potentially earlier unsupported versions.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceA command injection vulnerability exists in Control-M/Server communication where user-supplied input is not properly filtered or sanitized. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this to execute arbitrary commands on the affected server with the privileges of the Control-M/Server process, leading to complete system compromise.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Control-M/Server installation and versionRun 'ctmversion' or check the Control-M installation directory for version information. On Windows, check the registry or installed programs list. On Linux/Unix, check /opt/ctm or the installation path for version files.Affected if The installed version falls within 9.0.20.x through 9.0.21.200
-
Verify Control-M/Server communication ports are exposedCheck network configuration for listening ports used by Control-M/Server (typically ports 7005-7008 or custom-configured ports). Use 'netstat -an' or 'ss -tlnp' to identify open ports associated with Control-M processes.Affected if Control-M/Server communication ports are directly accessible from untrusted networks without firewall restrictions
-
Review Control-M/Server configuration for authentication settingsExamine the Control-M/Server configuration files (typically in the config directory) for authentication and input validation settings. Look for parameters controlling remote command execution or external script handling.Affected if Authentication is disabled or weak on the Server communication interface, or input validation settings are missing or misconfigured
-
Audit for unexpected processes or scheduled jobsReview running processes and scheduled jobs for unfamiliar commands or scripts executing with Control-M service account privileges. Check /var/spool/cron, Windows Task Scheduler, and running process lists.Affected if Unexpected processes or jobs exist that were not authored by your organization, or suspicious shell commands appear in job definitions
-
Examine Control-M/Server logs for injection attemptsReview Control-M/Server logs (in the logs directory) for unusual command patterns, failed authentication attempts, or malformed requests in the communication logs. Look for special characters used in command injection (;, |, &, $`, etc.).
A user is affected if Control-M/Server version 9.0.20.x through 9.0.21.200 is installed AND the Server communication ports are network-accessible to untrusted parties, as this allows unauthenticated remote command injection.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedApply the vendor-supplied patch for Control-M/Server versions 9.0.20.x through 9.0.21.200. As an interim measure, restrict network access to Control-M/Server communication ports and implement network segmentation to limit exposure.
Control-M/Server version 9.0.21.201 or later (contact BMC for exact fixed release)
- 1. Identify your current Control-M/Server version by running: ctmversion or checking the Control-M Administration GUI
- 2. If running version 9.0.20.x through 9.0.21.200, plan for upgrade to a fixed release
- 3. Contact BMC Customer Support to obtain the specific patched version or hotfix for CVE-2026-10539
- 4. Before applying upgrade or patch in production, test in a non-production environment
- 5. Apply the BMC-provided patch or upgrade to version 9.0.21.201 or later
- 6. Verify the patch was applied successfully and the vulnerability is resolved
- 7. Review BMC Control-M security best practices and restrict network access to Control-M/Server ports
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,232.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10539 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10539 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data