CVE-2026-27476
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 · uneditedRustFly 2.0.0 contains a command injection vulnerability in its remote UI control mechanism that accepts hex-encoded instructions over UDP port 5005 without proper sanitization. Attackers can send crafted hex-encoded payloads containing system commands to execute arbitrary operations on the target system, including reverse shell establishment and command execution.
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 confidenceRustFly 2.0.0 contains a command injection vulnerability in its remote UI control mechanism. The service listening on UDP port 5005 accepts hex-encoded instructions without proper sanitization, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary system commands through crafted hex payloads.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 RustFly versionRun 'rustfly --version' or check the installed package version using your system's package manager (e.g., 'dpkg -l rustfly', 'rpm -qi rustfly', or check the binary metadata)Affected if Version is 2.0.0 exactly or if version cannot be determined but the product is RustFly with remote UI capability
-
Confirm UDP port 5005 is listeningRun 'netstat -ulnp | grep 5005' or 'ss -ulnp | grep 5005' to check if RustFly is bound to UDP port 5005Affected if UDP port 5005 is open and bound to RustFly service
-
Verify remote UI control is enabledInspect RustFly configuration files (typically in /etc/rustfly/, /opt/rustfly/config, or the working directory) for settings like 'remote_ui', 'ui_control', 'remote_command', or similar flags enabling the remote control featureAffected if The remote UI control mechanism is explicitly enabled in the configuration
-
Inspect network binding configurationCheck the main RustFly config file for 'bind', 'listen', or 'address' directives that include UDP port 5005, and confirm the 'control' or 'remote' settings allow external accessAffected if RustFly is configured to accept remote connections on UDP 5005 from non-localhost addresses
A user is affected if they run RustFly 2.0.0 with UDP port 5005 open and the remote UI control mechanism enabled, allowing external hex-encoded 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.
From vendor dataRestrict network access to UDP port 5005 via firewall or network segmentation. Implement strict input validation and sanitization for hex-encoded commands before passing to system execution functions. Consider disabling the remote UI control mechanism if not essential.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-27476 — 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-2026-27476 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