What is CVE-2026-57223?

CVE-2026-57223 is Suricata windows: unquoted LocalSystem service ImagePath can allow local privilege escalation. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Privilege Esc mapped to CWE-428 CWE-428.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-57223. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-57223 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-57223. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-57223 using CVSS 7, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highPrivilege Esc

CVE-2026-57223

CVE-2026-57223 — Suricata windows: unquoted LocalSystem service ImagePath can allow local privilege escalation

Suricata is a network Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion Prevention System and Network Security Monitoring engine. Prior to 7.0.17 and 8.0.6, the Windows service installation and parameter-update logic in src/win32-service.c can pass an unquoted service ImagePath to CreateServiceA. When Suricata is installed below a path containing spaces and an earlier path component is writable by a local low-privileged attacker, Windows can execute an attacker-controlled program as LocalSystem, resulting in local privilege escalation. This issue is fixed in versions 8.0.6 and 7.0.17.

Published Sep 18, 2026Updated Sep 18, 2026Sources: NVD, OISF (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

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

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

OISF

2 products listed

CVSS base

high

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade suricata to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
OISF	suricata	>= 8.0.0, < 8.0.6	Vulnerable
OISF	suricata	< 7.0.17	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

High

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
7	CVSS 3.1	high	1	5.9	GitHub (CNA), OISF (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-428 · Unquoted Search Path or Element

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands::

Mitigation: Properly quote the full search path before executing a program on the system.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-428

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-233 · Privilege EscalationCAPEC-69 · Target Programs with Elevated Privileges

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /win32-service.c.
Review endpoint telemetry for service binary replacement, suspicious service launches, or privilege changes tied to the affected agent.

EDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 7.0 (AV:L)
Sep 18, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 18, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

8 on the record

github.com/OISF/suricata/commit/0dad38fff024b4fec9bc8144d8b94dbca39aac2e
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/OISF/suricata/commit/2b924d47cc51d0b7760cda3519f2c04a2f65ea38
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/OISF/suricata/commit/ac1b3cc1ef3af65ce92da28261d445167eb8234d
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/OISF/suricata/pull/15676
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/OISF/suricata/releases/tag/suricata-7.0.17
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/OISF/suricata/releases/tag/suricata-8.0.6
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/OISF/suricata/security/advisories/GHSA-jh8w-wf3f-58jp
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/8600
Vendor Advisory, Mitre

Elsewhere on this site

OISFevery CVE for this vendor
Privilege Escsame class
CWE-428other 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.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-57223 is Suricata windows: unquoted LocalSystem service ImagePath can allow local privilege escalation, a high vulnerability affecting suricata from OISF. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-57223. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-57223. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.