dbcve.org
OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2026-45564

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
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
Roxy-WI is a web interface for managing Haproxy, Nginx, Apache and Keepalived servers. In versions 8.2.6.4 and prior, POST /config/versions/<service>/<server_ip>/<configver>/save interpolates the URL-path configver parameter directly into a config-version path that ends up at os.system(f"dos2unix -q {cfg}"). configver is not run through EscapedString (Pydantic doesn't validate path segments declared as str) and the surrounding .. block is the broken tuple-membership patch from GHSA-vapt-004. An authenticated user with role <= 3 ("user") therefore reaches a bin/sh -c command-injection sink. At time of publication, there are no publicly available patches.

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

Roxy-WI versions 8.2.6.4 and prior contain a command injection vulnerability in the POST /config/versions/<service>/<server_ip>/<configver>/save endpoint. The configver URL path parameter is not validated (Pydantic doesn't validate path segments declared as str) and gets directly interpolated into an os.system(f'dos2unix -q {cfg}') call, allowing authenticated users with role <= 3 to inject arbitrary shell commands.

MitigationSince no patch exists at publication, restrict network access to the Roxy-WI web interface and limit user accounts to roles above 3 until vendor-supplied patches are available.

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
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. Identify Roxy-WI installation and version
    Locate the Roxy-WI installation directory and check the version file or startup script. Common locations include /opt/roxy-wi or the application root. Run: cat <install_path>/app/version.py or check the web interface version display.
    Affected if Installed version is 8.2.6.4 or any prior version (8.x.y.z where y.z < 6.4 or any 7.x.x.x version)
  2. Verify the vulnerable endpoint exists
    Locate the source code file handling the /config/versions/<service>/<server_ip>/<configver>/save route. Search for the dos2unix os.system call and confirm the configver path parameter is directly interpolated without validation.
    Affected if The code contains os.system(f'dos2unix -q {cfg}') or similar with unsanitized configver variable interpolation
  3. Check user role configuration
    Examine the Roxy-WI user database or configuration file (typically users.json, users.db, or similar in the config directory). Identify users with role values <= 3.
    Affected if Any user account exists with role <= 3 (roles 1, 2, or 3) that can authenticate to the web interface
  4. Assess network exposure of web interface
    Check the Roxy-WI web server configuration (nginx/apache) or firewall rules to determine if the web interface (default port 8086 or 443) is exposed to untrusted networks.
    Affected if The Roxy-WI web interface is accessible from networks other than trusted management networks

A user is affected if they run Roxy-WI version 8.2.6.4 or prior, have users with role <= 3, and the web interface is network-accessible to those users or potential attackers.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Since no patch exists at publication, restrict network access to the Roxy-WI web interface and limit user accounts to roles above 3 until vendor-supplied patches are available.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
19.0 hours of engineering $3,380
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-45564 — 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-2026-45564 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