What is CVE-2026-74237?

CVE-2026-74237 is GFI Exinda AI < 7.6.5 Argument Injection via Tools Iperf Client. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-88 CWE-88.

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-2026-74237. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-74237 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-2026-74237. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, 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-2026-74237 using CVSS 6.5, 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.

mediumRemote Code Exec

CVE-2026-74237

CVE-2026-74237 — GFI Exinda AI < 7.6.5 Argument Injection via Tools Iperf Client

Q: 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.

Q: Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-74237. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

Q: Is it in CISA KEV?

No. CVE-2026-74237 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.

Q: Is there a public exploit?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-74237. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

Q: How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, 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.

Q: How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-74237 using CVSS 6.5, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

Q: 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.

GFI Exinda AI before 7.6.5 contains an argument injection vulnerability in the Tools Iperf Client functionality. The web_tools_cmd() function constructs an iperf command using the server and options parameters without sanitization, permitting injection of arbitrary iperf flags. An authenticated attacker with Unprivileged (lowest-level) access can supply the iperf -F flag to read an arbitrary file from the system and transmit its contents to an attacker-controlled server.

Published Sep 4, 2026Updated Sep 4, 2026Sources: NVD, GFI Software (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

GFI Software

GFI Exinda AI

CVSS base

6.5

medium · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade GFI Exinda AI 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
GFI Software	GFI Exinda AI	0 to < 7.6.5	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

None

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

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
6.5	CVSS 3.1	medium	2.8	3.6	NVD, GFI Software (CNA)
7.1	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	GFI Software (CNA)

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

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-88 · Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Alter Execution Logic
Read Application Data
Modify Application Data

Mitigation: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-88

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-41 · Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious PayloadsCAPEC-137 · Parameter InjectionCAPEC-174 · Flash Parameter InjectionCAPEC-460 · HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)CAPEC-88 · OS Command Injection

Detection

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

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable GFI Exinda AI.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSEDR 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 6.5 (AV:N)
Sep 4, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 4, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 4, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

GFI Softwareevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-88other 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-2026-74237 is GFI Exinda AI < 7.6.5 Argument Injection via Tools Iperf Client, a medium vulnerability affecting GFI Exinda AI from GFI Software. 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-2026-74237. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-74237. 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 6.5 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.