dbcve.org
InventreeApplication · Inventree Project

CVE-2026-35477

CRITICAL · 9.9 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-08
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 1.2.6 or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable 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
InvenTree is an Open Source Inventory Management System. From 1.2.3 to 1.2.6, the fix for CVE-2026-27629 upgraded the PART_NAME_FORMAT validator to use jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment. However, the actual renderer in part/helpers.py was not updated and still uses the non-sandboxed jinja2.Environment. Additionally, the validator uses a dummy Part instance with pk=None, which allows conditional template expressions to behave differently during validation versus production rendering. A staff user with settings access can craft a template that passes validation but executes arbitrary code during rendering. This issue requires access by a user with granted staff permissions. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.7 and 1.3.0.

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

InvenTree's part name template renderer in part/helpers.py uses unsandboxed jinja2.Environment while the validator was previously upgraded to use SandboxedEnvironment. A staff user can exploit the pk=None dummy Part used during validation to craft templates that pass validation but execute arbitrary code during actual rendering, achieving remote code execution.

MitigationUpgrade to InvenTree 1.2.7 or 1.3.0, or patch part/helpers.py to replace jinja2.Environment with jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment.

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
InventreeApplication
Affected:>= 1.2.3, <= 1.2.6

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 InvenTree version
    Check the installed InvenTree version (typically in version.py, setup.py, or the admin interface under System Information)
    Affected if The version is greater than or equal to 1.2.3 and less than or equal to 1.2.6
  2. Confirm PART_NAME_FORMAT feature is in use
    Inspect InvenTree settings or database for the PART_NAME_FORMAT configuration option - this is a template used for part naming
    Affected if PART_NAME_FORMAT is configured and actively used for part templates
  3. Inspect part/helpers.py for sandbox usage
    Locate and read the file part/helpers.py in the InvenTree installation directory. Search for the jinja2 Environment initialization used for rendering templates
    Affected if The file uses jinja2.Environment() instead of jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment() for template rendering
  4. Identify staff users in the system
    Check if there are any users with staff privileges in InvenTree (via admin interface or database users table where is_staff=True)
    Affected if Staff users exist who have the privileges required to configure PART_NAME_FORMAT templates

You are affected if your InvenTree version is between 1.2.3 and 1.2.6 inclusive, PART_NAME_FORMAT is in use, and part/helpers.py uses the unsandboxed jinja2.Environment for rendering - combined with the presence of staff users who could exploit this mismatch.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 1.2.6
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to InvenTree 1.2.7 or 1.3.0, or patch part/helpers.py to replace jinja2.Environment with jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment.

Recommended fix High confidence

1.2.7 or 1.3.0 (both contain the fix)

  1. 1. Back up your InvenTree database and configuration before proceeding with any upgrade
  2. 2. Consult the official InvenTree upgrade documentation for your deployment method (Docker, pip, or manual installation)
  3. 3. Upgrade InvenTree to version 1.2.7 or 1.3.0 to address the template injection vulnerability
  4. 4. After upgrade, verify that staff users cannot inject malicious Jinja2 template code in PART_NAME_FORMAT settings
  5. 5. Review user permissions and audit staff accounts to ensure only trusted personnel have settings access
Caveat Review release notes for any configuration or feature changes between your current version and 1.2.7/1.3.0

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Inventree Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation1.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
5.0 hours of engineering $860
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-35477 — 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-2026-35477 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