CVE-2026-31246
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 · uneditedGPT-Pilot thru commit 0819827ce20346ef5f25b3fe29293cb448840565 (2025-09-03) contains a command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in the Executor.run() method. During project execution, when the system prompts the user to confirm or modify a command to be run, it accepts free-text input without proper validation. The user-supplied input is directly passed to asyncio.create_subprocess_shell() for execution. This allows an attacker to replace the intended command with arbitrary shell commands, leading to remote code execution with the privileges of the GPT-Pilot process.
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 confidenceGPT-Pilot's Executor.run() method accepts free-text user input during command confirmation prompts and passes it directly to asyncio.create_subprocess_shell() without validation, allowing arbitrary shell command injection and remote code execution.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
-
Locate GPT-Pilot installationSearch for the Executor module in your GPT-Pilot installation directory, typically under executor.py or similar in the project sourceAffected if The Executor class with run() method exists in your environment
-
Identify subprocess execution methodOpen the Executor file and search for asyncio.create_subprocess_shell calls within the run() methodAffected if asyncio.create_subprocess_shell() is used in the run() method without argument list alternatives
-
Check for user input in confirmation promptsExamine the run() method for input(), input_with_options(), or similar functions that prompt for user confirmationAffected if The method accepts free-text user input during command confirmation
-
Trace input-to-shell data flowFollow the code path from the user input variable through to the subprocess call to see if it is passed as-is to the shell commandAffected if User input from confirmation prompts is concatenated or passed directly to the shell command without sanitization or validation checks
-
Inspect input validationSearch for validation functions, allowlists, or sanitization logic between user input receipt and subprocess executionAffected if No input validation, character allowlisting, or use of argument lists (asyncio.create_subprocess_exec) is present before shell execution
Your environment is affected if GPT-Pilot is installed and the Executor.run() method uses asyncio.create_subprocess_shell() with unsanitized free-text user input from confirmation prompts.
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 to whitelist allowed characters/commands, and refactor to use asyncio.create_subprocess_exec() with argument lists instead of shell execution to prevent command injection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-31246 — 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-2026-31246 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