CVE-2026-50014
Is CVE-2026-50014 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Low signal — verdict needed
Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
pnpm is a package manager. Prior to 10.34.0 and 11.4.0, pnpm passes the lockfile-controlled git resolution.commit value to git fetch without a -- separator or commit-format validation. For git dependencies fetched through the shallow-fetch path, a malicious lockfile can replace the expected 40-character commit hash with a Git option such as --upload-pack=<command>. For SSH and local transports, --upload-pack can execute the supplied command. HTTPS transports ignore --upload-pack, so the practical attack surface is primarily SSH or local git dependencies. This vulnerability is fixed in 10.34.0 and 11.4.0.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-50014)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-50014"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-50014/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-50014"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsNo account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-88.
- CVE-2016-10033CRIT 9.8KEVEPSS 100%
The mailSend function in the isMail transport in PHPMailer before 5.2.18 might allow remote attackers to pass extra parameters to the mail command and consequently execute arbitrary code via a \" (backslash double quote) in a crafted Sender property.
- CVE-2026-24061CRIT 9.8KEVEPSS 99%
telnetd in GNU Inetutils through 2.7 allows remote authentication bypass via a "-f root" value for the USER environment variable.
- CVE-2024-41710HIGH 7.2KEVEPSS 42%
A vulnerability in the Mitel 6800 Series, 6900 Series, and 6900w Series SIP Phones, including the 6970 Conference Unit, through R6.4.0.HF1 (R6.4.0.136) could allow an authenticated attacker with administrative privilege to conduct an argument injection attack, due to insufficient parameter sanitization during the boot process. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands within the context of the system.
- CVE-2026-16493HIGH 7.8
A flaw was found in ansible-core. The _extract_collection_from_git() function in ansible-core's concrete_artifact_manager.py constructs git clone commands without a '--' (end-of-options) separator before user-supplied URLs when installing collections from git sources. An attacker who provides a crafted collection source URI containing git argument injection payloads can achieve arbitrary command execution when a user runs 'ansible-galaxy collection install' with the malicious source. This is an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-11332, which hardened the role install path but missed the equivalent collection install code path.
- CVE-2026-49373HIGH 7.1
In JetBrains TeamCity before 2026.1 remote code execution was possible via Perforce connection settings
- CVE-2026-40047CRIT 9.1DisputedEPSS 2%
Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') vulnerability in Apache Camel Docling component. The camel-docling component invokes the external `docling` command-line tool by assembling an argument list in DoclingProducer and executing it through java.lang.ProcessBuilder. Custom CLI arguments supplied through the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` exchange header (a List<String>) were appended to that argument list with insufficient validation: the original implementation relied on a denylist of disallowed flags and only rejected path values that contained a literal `../` sequence. As a result, a Camel route that forwards externally-influenced data into the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` header (or into the path-bearing headers used to build the invocation) could cause the producer to pass unrecognized or unintended `docling` CLI flags to the subprocess, and could supply path-like argument values that resolved outside the intended directory through traversal sequences not caught by the literal `../` check. Because Camel itself builds the `docling` invocation from these values, the component is responsible for constraining them, and the weak validation allowed CLI-argument injection and directory traversal in the arguments passed to the external tool. The invocation uses the list-based form of ProcessBuilder, so a shell does not interpret the argument values; OS command injection through shell metacharacters was not possible, and the metacharacter rejection added by the fix is defense-in-depth. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.15.0 before 4.18.3. Users are recommended to upgrade to a release that contains the CAMEL-23212 fix. On the mainline the fix is included from Apache Camel 4.19.0 (and later releases such as 4.20.0). For users on the 4.18.x LTS releases stream, upgrade to 4.18.3. The fix replaces the denylist with a strict allowlist of recognized `docling` CLI flags (rejecting any unrecognized flag, and rejecting producer-managed flags such as the output-directory flags), defensively rejects shell metacharacters in argument values, and normalizes path-like values with Path.normalize() before validating them so that traversal sequences which bypass a literal `../` check are detected. As defence in depth, route authors should avoid mapping untrusted message content into the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` header and the path-bearing headers, and should strip Camel-internal headers from messages that arrive from untrusted producers.