Sandbox Escape in ServiceNow AI Platform
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: partly blocked.
ServiceNow has addressed a remote code execution vulnerability that was identified in the ServiceNow AI platform. This vulnerability could enable an unauthenticated user, in certain circumstances, to execute code within the ServiceNow… More
ServiceNow has addressed a remote code execution vulnerability that was identified in the ServiceNow AI platform. This vulnerability could enable an unauthenticated user, in certain circumstances, to execute code within the ServiceNow platform. ServiceNow addressed this vulnerability by deploying a security update to hosted instances. Relevant security updates have also been provided to ServiceNow self-hosted customers and partners. Further, the vulnerability is addressed in the listed patches and family releases, which have been made available to hosted and self-hosted customers, as well as partners. We are not currently aware of exploitation against ServiceNow instances. We recommend customers promptly apply appropriate updates or upgrade to a patched release if they have not already done so.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 4.0Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability; other systems can also be hit (full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability).
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityThe attacker must first defeat a security measure, such as address randomisation, or obtain a secret.High
- Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.None
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- 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 that rely on it can have all their data read.High
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have any data changed.High
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can be taken down.High
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:HCISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2026-6875.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2026-07-13CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-09-16F5 ships a ruleServiceNow Sandbox Escape RCE
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of itparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of itparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
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 Rules
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)
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 rules
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 patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
First rule 2026-09-16, 65 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200204086 "ServiceNow Sandbox Escape RCE" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: Java Servlets/JSP. References: CVE-2026-6875.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
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.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.