CVE-2026-41880
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 · uneditedR-SOFT DMS is vulnerable to OS Command Injection in the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) module. Multiple command execution functions accept user-controllable file paths without proper sanitization before passing them to the system shell via SSH. In current infrastructure the URL encoding neutralizes the injection during the standard web upload flow. An authenticated attacker who is able to trigger the OCR functionality for the uploaded file can execute OS commands within the context of a root user. This issue was fixed in version v3.19-2862 and v3.17-2580.
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 confidenceR-SOFT DMS contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability in its OCR module where multiple command execution functions accept user-controllable file paths without proper sanitization, passing them to the system shell via SSH. An authenticated attacker who can trigger OCR on an uploaded file can execute commands as root. While standard web upload flow uses URL encoding to neutralize injection, the OCR processing path remains exploitable.
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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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.
-
Identify R-SOFT DMS installation and versionLocate the R-SOFT DMS installation directory and check the version file or executable metadata. Common locations include /opt/rsoft-dms or C:\Program Files\R-SOFT DMS. Look for a version.txt, about screen, or use command: dmstool --version or check the DMS control panel for version information.Affected if The installed version is below v3.19-2862 or v3.17-2580, or if the version cannot be determined and the product is R-SOFT DMS.
-
Verify OCR module is enabledCheck the R-SOFT DMS configuration files (typically in config/ or settings/ directory) for OCR module settings. Look for entries like 'ocr.enabled', 'enable_ocr', or 'ocr_module' and confirm they are set to true or present.Affected if The OCR module is enabled in the configuration.
-
Confirm OCR processing is accessible to authenticated usersReview user role permissions and access controls in the DMS admin panel or configuration. Specifically check if regular authenticated users have permissions to trigger OCR operations on uploaded documents, or inspect the OCR processing endpoint accessibility.Affected if Authenticated users with standard upload permissions can trigger OCR operations.
-
Inspect OCR file upload pathExamine the OCR processing workflow to confirm it handles uploaded files without proper sanitization. Check if uploaded files pass through the vulnerable code path that invokes shell commands via SSH without URL encoding applied.Affected if The OCR processing path bypasses standard URL encoding sanitization and directly passes user-controlled file paths to system shell commands.
A user is affected if R-SOFT DMS is installed with an OCR-enabled version below v3.19-2862 or v3.17-2580, and authenticated users can trigger OCR operations on uploaded files through the unprotected processing path.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade R-SOFT DMS to version v3.19-2862 or v3.17-2580. Additionally, restrict OCR module access to only trusted authenticated users and implement network segmentation to limit the impact of potential root-level command execution.
v3.19-2862 (or v3.17-2580 for the v3.17 branch)
- 1. Identify the current installed version of R-SOFT DMS by checking the application documentation or system settings
- 2. Determine which release branch is appropriate for your deployment (v3.19 or v3.17)
- 3. Obtain the fixed version: upgrade to v3.19-2862 (recommended, latest fixed release) or v3.17-2580 (if maintaining the v3.17 branch)
- 4. Follow the vendor's standard upgrade procedure documented for R-SOFT DMS
- 5. After upgrade, verify the OCR module is functional and the vulnerability is resolved
- 6. Confirm the application is running with the updated version number
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41880 — 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-2026-41880 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