dbcve.org
Code InjectionWeakness · CWE-94

CVE-2026-31236

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
The llm CLI tool thru 0.27.1 contains a critical code injection vulnerability via its --functions command-line argument. This argument is intended to allow users to provide custom Python function definitions. However, the tool directly executes the provided code using the unsafe exec() function without any sanitization, sandboxing, or security restrictions. An attacker can exploit this by crafting a malicious llm command with arbitrary Python code in the --functions argument and using social engineering to trick a victim into running it. This leads to arbitrary code execution on the victim's system, potentially granting the attacker full control.

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 confidence

The llm CLI tool through version 0.27.1 has a critical code injection vulnerability where the --functions argument passes user-supplied Python code directly to the unsafe exec() function without any sanitization, sandboxing, or security restrictions, allowing arbitrary code execution.

MitigationReplace the unsafe exec() call with a secure alternative such as Python's AST module for parsing and validation, or implement a properly sandboxed execution environment that restricts dangerous operations.

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify llm CLI tool is installed
    Run 'llm --version' or 'which llm' to confirm the tool exists on the system
    Affected if llm command executes and returns a version number
  2. Determine installed llm version
    Run 'llm --version' and compare the output to the affected range (through version 0.27.1)
    Affected if Installed version is 0.27.1 or earlier
  3. Detect use of vulnerable --functions argument
    Review command history, scripts, cron jobs, or automation that invoke 'llm' with the '--functions' flag
    Affected if llm commands are being run with the --functions argument containing untrusted input

A user is affected if llm version 0.27.1 or earlier is installed AND the tool is invoked with the --functions argument handling untrusted Python code.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Replace the unsafe exec() call with a secure alternative such as Python's AST module for parsing and validation, or implement a properly sandboxed execution environment that restricts dangerous operations.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,670
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,272.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-31236 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-31236 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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