CVE-2026-44723
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 · uneditedVowpal Wabbit is a machine learning system. The workflow .github/workflows/python_checks.yml embeds ${{ github.event.pull_request.title }} directly inside double-quoted bash strings in four separate steps across four jobs, each passing it as a CLI argument to the Python test script run_tests_model_gen_and_load.py. The shell interprets the expanded string before invoking Python, allowing an attacker to break out of the quotes and execute arbitrary commands on the runner. The pull_request trigger fires on PRs targeting any branch (branches: ['*']), with no additional access gate. This vulnerability is fixed by the 998e390e80a7e8192d7849b7784bc113dbd190ad commit.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe GitHub Actions workflow python_checks.yml directly interpolates the pull request title (${{ github.event.pull_request.title }}) into double-quoted bash strings passed as CLI arguments to a Python test script. Because the title is expanded by the shell before Python execution, an attacker can craft a malicious PR title containing shell metacharacters to break out of the quotes and execute arbitrary commands on the 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< 2026-05-04CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if python_checks.yml workflow existsLocate the .github/workflows/python_checks.yml file in the repository or download it from the remoteAffected if The file does not exist - the vulnerability does not apply to this environment
-
Inspect workflow for vulnerable PR title usageExamine the workflow YAML content for patterns where ${{ github.event.pull_request.title }} is passed directly as CLI arguments to Python scripts within bash stringsAffected if The PR title variable is directly embedded into shell command strings without sanitization
-
Check for input sanitization implementationLook for evidence of proper input handling such as environment variable usage, input validation libraries, or the fix commit 998e390e in the repository historyAffected if No sanitization is implemented and the vulnerable pattern is present
-
Verify version is before the fix dateCheck the installed Vowpal Wabbit version or the repository commit date against the 2026-05-04 release dateAffected if The version or commit predates 2026-05-04 and contains the vulnerable workflow
Affected if the repository contains the python_checks.yml workflow with direct PR title injection into shell strings and the version/commit predates the 2026-05-04 fix.
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 · scoped2026-05-04
Sanitize the pull request title using environment variables or escape shell metacharacters before embedding it in bash strings, or pass the title to Python via environment variables rather than shell command interpolation.
Vowpal Wabbit >= 2026-05-04
- Review the vulnerable .github/workflows/python_checks.yml file in the repository
- Locate the four steps where ${{ github.event.pull_request.title }} is used within double-quoted bash strings
- Apply the fix from commit 998e390e80a7e8192d7849b7784bc113dbd190ad which properly escapes or sanitizes the PR title before passing it to Python
- Verify that pull_request triggers are appropriately scoped (not using branches: ['*'] if possible)
- After applying the fix, test the workflow with a benign PR title to confirm the pipeline still functions correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44723 — 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-2026-44723 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