CVE-2026-11455
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 vulnerability was determined in FoundationAgents MetaGPT up to 0.8.2. Affected by this issue is the function check_cmd_exists of the file metagpt/utils/common.py. This manipulation of the argument mermaid.path causes command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. 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 · high confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in MetaGPT's check_cmd_exists function in metagpt/utils/common.py. The mermaid.path argument is passed unsanitized to command execution, allowing injection of arbitrary shell 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Verify MetaGPT is installedRun 'pip show metagpt' or 'pip list | grep metagpt' to check if MetaGPT is present in the environmentAffected if MetaGPT is installed and the version falls within the affected range (the vulnerability exists in unpatched versions of the check_cmd_exists function)
-
Locate the vulnerable source fileCheck if the file metagpt/utils/common.py exists in the MetaGPT installation directoryAffected if The file exists and contains the check_cmd_exists function which is the vulnerable code path
-
Inspect the check_cmd_exists functionOpen metagpt/utils/common.py and locate the check_cmd_exists function; look for shell command execution using the mermaid.path argument without sanitizationAffected if The function passes mermaid.path to a shell command (shell=True) without input validation or sanitization
-
Check if mermaid.path is configuredSearch configuration files, environment variables, or runtime settings for mermaid.path or mermaid configuration that specifies a pathAffected if mermaid.path is configured and being passed to the vulnerable function, enabling the attack vector
You are affected if MetaGPT is installed with a vulnerable version of check_cmd_exists that uses shell=True with the mermaid.path argument unsanitized, and mermaid.path is actively configured in your environment.
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 dataSanitize and validate the mermaid.path parameter using input allowlisting or parameterized execution patterns before use in any shell command; avoid shell invocation where possible.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-11455 — 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-2026-11455 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