WenxianApplication · Njzjz
CVE-2026-34243
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 · uneditedwenxian is a tool to generate BIBTEX files from given identifiers (DOI, PMID, arXiv ID, or paper title). In versions 0.3.1 and prior, a GitHub Actions workflow uses untrusted user input from issue_comment.body directly inside a shell command, allowing potential command injection and arbitrary code execution on the runner. At time of publication, there are no publicly available patches.
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 GitHub Actions workflow in wenxian v0.3.1 and prior uses untrusted user input from issue_comment.body directly in a shell command without sanitization, enabling command injection and arbitrary code execution on the CI/CD runner.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
WenxianApplication
<= 0.3.1CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Wenxian versionRun pip show wenxian or check your dependency lock file (requirements.txt, Pipfile.lock, poetry.lock) for the wenxian package versionAffected if The installed version is 0.3.1 or lower
-
Locate GitHub Actions workflow filesInspect the .github/workflows/ directory in your repository for YAML files that reference Wenxian or contain issue_comment triggersAffected if A workflow file exists and processes issue_comment events from this package
-
Inspect workflow for vulnerable patternOpen the workflow YAML file and search for instances where issue_comment.body is used within shell commands (run: steps) without escaping or validation functions like ${{...}}Affected if The workflow directly interpolates issue_comment.body into a run: command without using GitHub's environment variable escaping (e.g., $GITHUB_ENV or ${{ env.* }} with proper escaping)
-
Verify workflow is activeCheck if the workflow file exists under .github/workflows/ and has not been disabled or removed from the repositoryAffected if The vulnerable workflow file is present and the workflow has not been manually disabled in GitHub settings
You are affected if Wenxian version 0.3.1 or lower is installed AND a GitHub Actions workflow processes issue_comment.body directly in shell commands without sanitization.
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 or parameterize user input from issue_comment.body before passing to shell commands; implement input validation, use environment variables with proper escaping, or adopt GitHub's secure input handling patterns to prevent injection.
Fix this in Wenxian
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2026-34243 — 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-2026-34243 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