CVE-2026-75486
CVE-2026-75486 — Synk Sweater Comb < 3.8.8 Command Injection via .vervet.yaml Branch Name
Synk Sweater Comb before 3.8.8 contains a command injection vulnerability that allows an attacker who controls the .vervet.yaml configuration file to execute arbitrary OS commands by injecting malicious input into the linters.<key>.optic-ci.original branch name field. The expectGitBranch() function in src/lint.ts passes the unsanitized branch name directly into child_process.exec() via an unescaped template literal, enabling arbitrary command execution when the lint command is run against the repository.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, VulnCheck
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
CVSS base
8
HIGH
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)
Products (1)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | CVSS 3.1 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-78
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 /lint.ts.
References
4 on the record
- github.com/snyk/sweater-comb/releases/tag/v3.8.8
release-notes
- github.com/snyk/sweater-comb/pull/743
issue-tracking, patch
- github.com/snyk/sweater-comb/commit/05a0eec4f2acb9ce6d4814016b475504fc64eab2
patch
- www.vulncheck.com/advisories/synk-sweater-comb-command-injection-via-vervet-yaml-branch-name
third-party-advisory
Elsewhere on this site
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.