CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2026-35520

CVE-2026-35520 — Pi-hole FTL affected by Remote Code Execution (RCE) via dhcp.leaseTime Newline Injection

FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the DHCP lease time configuration parameter (dhcp.leaseTime). This vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

pi hole

ftl

CVSS base

8.8

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

pi hole

Products (1)

ftl

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.8CVSS 3.1HIGH——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-78
  • CWE-93

References

1 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • pi holeevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-78other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.