CVE-2026-46746
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in SINEC INS (All versions < V1.0 SP2 Update 6). The application does not properly sanitize user input in the /api/sftp/uploadFiles endpoint, allowing the injection of shell command payloads via crafted directory names. These payloads are stored and executed when directory listings are retrieved. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with the privileges of the affected service user (sinecins).
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 confidenceSINEC INS contains a command injection vulnerability in the /api/sftp/uploadFiles endpoint where unsanitized directory names containing shell command payloads are stored and later executed when directory listings are retrieved. An authenticated attacker can achieve remote code execution as the sinecins service user.
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<= 1.0= 1.0CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify SINEC INS installation and versionLocate the SINEC INS installation directory and check the product version file or use the product's built-in version information command. Compare the installed version against the affected range: version 1.0 and any versions <= 1.0.Affected if The installed version is 1.0 or any version lower than 1.0.
-
Verify SFTP upload functionality is enabledCheck the SINEC INS configuration to determine if the SFTP upload API endpoint (/api/sftp/uploadFiles) is accessible and enabled. Review the service configuration files or web interface settings related to SFTP file transfer.Affected if The SFTP upload feature is enabled and accessible to authenticated users.
-
Inspect directory names for shell metacharactersReview the directory structure accessible via the SFTP upload feature. Examine stored directory names for suspicious patterns such as backticks, semicolons, pipes, $() command substitution, or other shell metacharacters that could indicate injected payloads.Affected if Any directory names contain shell command syntax or metacharacters like `;`, `|`, `$()`, backticks, or similar patterns.
-
Check application logs for malicious directory accessReview SINEC INS application logs, particularly those related to directory listing operations and SFTP upload API calls. Look for entries containing directory names with encoded or obfuscated shell commands.Affected if Logs show directory listing requests for directories with shell metacharacters or command injection patterns.
A user is affected if SINEC INS version 1.0 or lower is installed, the SFTP upload API is enabled, and either suspicious directory names with shell metacharacters or corresponding log entries are present in the environment.
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 to SINEC INS V1.0 SP2 Update 6 or later which implements proper input sanitization on the SFTP upload endpoint.
V1.0 SP2 Update 6
- 1. Identify the current installed version of SINEC INS by checking the application or system documentation.
- 2. Download SINEC INS version V1.0 SP2 Update 6 or later from the official Siemens download portal (cert-portal.siemens.com).
- 3. Follow Siemens' standard upgrade procedure for SINEC INS, ensuring to back up configuration data before proceeding.
- 4. After upgrading, verify that the /api/sftp/uploadFiles endpoint now properly sanitizes directory name inputs.
- 5. Confirm the service runs with the sinecins user privileges as expected post-upgrade.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-46746 — 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-2026-46746 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