dbcve.org
Uncontrolled Search Path (DLL Hijack)Weakness · CWE-427

CVE-2026-44358

HIGH · 8.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-28
Patch available
A vendor patch is available. No clean upgrade release — apply the published patch.
See remediation →
89/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Patch available

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
Espressif Shared GitHub DangerJS is a reusable GitHub Action CI DangerJS workflow for Espressif GitHub projects. Prior to 1.0.1, the action's entrypoint.sh invoked DangerJS from the caller's workspace after copying the fork's checkout into it, creating an untrusted search path for both binary resolution and Node.js module resolution. A fork pull request processed by a pull_request_target workflow could therefore cause fork-supplied code to execute inside the action container in place of the action's own code. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.1.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-427

The program loads a library or executable from a location an attacker can influence — a writable directory early in the search order — so a malicious file is loaded with the application's privileges. On Windows this is the classic DLL-hijack. Remediation is loading only from fully-qualified trusted paths and controlling the search order explicitly.

General guidance for the uncontrolled search path (dll hijack) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N

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
Patch available Apply the vendor patch
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

1.0.1

  1. Locate workflow files that reference the Espressif Shared GitHub DangerJS action (typically in `.github/workflows/` directory)
  2. Update the `uses:` clause to reference version 1.0.1, for example: `uses: espressif/[email protected]` or `uses: espressif/shared-github-dangerjs@v1` if v1 tag points to 1.0.1
  3. Commit and push the changes to trigger the workflow with the updated action version
  4. Verify the workflow runs successfully with the updated action version
Caveat Minimal risk; this is a security fix that patches the untrusted search path vulnerability without functional changes

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

We can apply and verify the patch for your build — typical engagement from $1,950. Get the patch applied

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44358 — 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-2026-44358 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