dbcve.org
FtldnsApplication · Pi Hole

CVE-2026-35519

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-07
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 6.5 or later.
See remediation →
94/100
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
FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the DNS host record configuration parameter (dns.hostRecord). This vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6.

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

Pi-hole FTL versions 6.0 through 6.5 contain an authenticated RCE vulnerability in the dns.hostRecord configuration parameter. The parameter fails to sanitize newline characters, allowing an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives that can execute commands on the host system.

MitigationUpgrade Pi-hole FTL to version 6.6 or later. Until then, restrict administrative API access to trusted users only and monitor for unauthorized changes to dns.hostRecord configurations.

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
FtldnsApplication
Affected:>= 6.0, <= 6.5

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
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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. Check Pi-hole FTL version
    Run command: pihole -v FTL or systemctl status pihole-FTL, or inspect /etc/pihole/FTL.conf for version metadata
    Affected if Version is 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, or 6.5 (within the 6.0-6.5 range)
  2. Verify admin API exposure
    Check if the web admin interface (port 80/443) is accessible from untrusted networks by reviewing firewall rules, reverse proxy configs, or using netstat -tlnp | grep -E '80|443'
    Affected if Admin API is exposed to networks with untrusted users who could authenticate and modify DNS settings
  3. Inspect dns.hostRecord configuration
    Query the API endpoint /api/dns/hostrecord, or inspect /etc/dnsmasq.d/01-pihole.conf, or run: sqlite3 /etc/pihole/pihole-FTL.db 'SELECT value FROM dns_record WHERE type="host"'
    Affected if dns.hostRecord entries contain unexpected newline characters or arbitrary dnsmasq directives (lines starting with interface=, bind-interfaces, or other dnsmasq config)
  4. Check for unauthorized DNS config changes
    Review Pi-hole query log or audit logs for API calls to /api/dns/hostrecord, or compare current dns.hostRecord settings against known-good baseline
    Affected if dns.hostRecord was modified through the API by an unauthorized or untrusted user

You are affected if Pi-hole FTL version is between 6.0 and 6.5 inclusive AND the admin API is accessible to untrusted users who could inject malicious dnsmasq directives via the dns.hostRecord parameter.

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 6.5
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Pi-hole FTL to version 6.6 or later. Until then, restrict administrative API access to trusted users only and monitor for unauthorized changes to dns.hostRecord configurations.

Recommended fix High confidence

6.6

  1. Stop the pihole-FTL service before upgrading
  2. Upgrade Ftldns (pihole-FTL) from version 6.0-6.5 to version 6.6
  3. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version
  4. Restart the pihole-FTL service
Caveat Review Pi-hole FTL 6.6 release notes for any configuration or API changes that may affect your setup

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

Fix this in Ftldns Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,120
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,392.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-35519 — 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-2026-35519 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