Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

sf-mcp through 1.3.2 OS Command Injection via Salesforce CLI Flag Values

Not in CISA KEVPublic exploit codeCVE-2026-117561CWE-78

Not confirmed exploited. No WAF vendor names it yet. 1 public exploit repo.

Edge rules
0/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
8.5
EPSS
0.7% Top 49%
Posts, 14d
12026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 1 posts
Published
2026-10-27
Codefriar sf-mcp through 1.3.2 contains an OS command injection vulnerability that allows attackers to execute shell commands by supplying crafted Salesforce CLI tool flag values. Because escapeValue() in src/utils.ts fails to neutralize… More

Codefriar sf-mcp through 1.3.2 contains an OS command injection vulnerability that allows attackers to execute shell commands by supplying crafted Salesforce CLI tool flag values. Because escapeValue() in src/utils.ts fails to neutralize backticks, $() substitution, and other shell metacharacters, these values reach execSync in executeSfCommand and run as the MCP server user.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-117561: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
High · 8.5 / 10

Exploitable with local access, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Needs local accessAny user loginNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker needs local access, or must trick a user into opening something on the machine.
    Local
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.
    None
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
    Low
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template1 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2026-10-27
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-11-02
    First public exploit repository
    AlexBiller/salesforce-cve-remediation-demo: Unofficial demo built with Devin - synthetic data: CVE-2026-117561 command-injection remediation walkthrough
  3. 2026-11-02
    First social mention we saw

Social

2026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 1 posts

Exploit repos · unvetted, don't run

  • AlexBiller·

    AlexBiller/salesforce-cve-remediation-demo: Unofficial demo built with Devin - synthetic data: CVE-2026-117561 command-injection remediation walkthrough

    View on GitHub

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The feed holds only the latest 25 changes, so history builds up from the day we started reading it.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.