CVE-2026-10550
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 weakness has been identified in elunez eladmin up to 2.7. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file App.java of the component Application Deployment Module. This manipulation of the argument uploadPath causes command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
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 elunez eladmin up to version 2.7 within the Application Deployment Module's App.java file. The uploadPath parameter is not properly sanitized before being used in command execution, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 if elunez eladmin is installedLocate the application deployment and identify if it is the elunez eladmin application. Check for eladmin JAR files, WAR files, or source code directories. Look for eladmin-specific configuration files or artifacts.Affected if The system is running elunez eladmin application software.
-
Determine the installed eladmin versionCheck the application version by examining the JAR/WAR file manifest, pom.xml version tag, or the application's about/version endpoint if available. Common locations: WEB-INF/manifest.mf, pom.xml in the source, or version displayed in the admin interface.Affected if The installed version is eladmin v2.7 or any earlier version.
-
Confirm the Application Deployment Module is presentInspect the application codebase for the presence of App.java file in the Application Deployment Module. Search for file paths containing 'Application Deployment' or 'App.java' in the application's source structure.Affected if The App.java file exists in the Application Deployment Module.
-
Verify the uploadPath parameter handling existsLocate and examine the App.java file in the Application Deployment Module. Search for code handling the 'uploadPath' parameter. Review how this parameter is processed - look for command execution calls (Runtime.exec, ProcessBuilder, or similar).Affected if The uploadPath parameter is used in command execution logic within App.java.
A system is affected if it runs elunez eladmin version 2.7 or earlier AND has the Application Deployment Module with the vulnerable uploadPath parameter in App.java accessible and in use.
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.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation using allowlist patterns on the uploadPath parameter, and replace any unsafe command execution methods (e.g., Runtime.exec(), ProcessBuilder with unsanitized input) with safer alternatives such as parameterized APIs or direct file operations without shell invocation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10550 — 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-2026-10550 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