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-2026-95832. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-95832 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?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with database audit 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-2026-95832 using CVSS 9.3, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

Workarounds are not confirmed from current sources. 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.

criticalInjectionpublic exploit

CVE-2026-95832

CVE-2026-95832 — Reflected unknown field names in the kitty colour control escape code allow command execution in the user's shell

Q: What is CVE-2026-95832?

CVE-2026-95832 is Reflected unknown field names in the kitty colour control escape code allow command execution in the user's shell. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Injection mapped to CWE-74 Injection.

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component in the colour control escape code handler in kitty from 0.47.3 before 0.49.0 allows a program writing to the terminal to execute an arbitrary command in the user's shell, because color_control() in kitty/window.py answers a query for an unrecognised field name by placing that field name into the reply, and write_escape_code_to_child() in kitty/screen.c then writes the reply to the pseudoterminal master, where it is not distinguishable from input typed by the user, without neutralising it for the shell that reads it. The payload is reduced to printable ASCII before the field name is echoed, which is the restriction introduced in 0.47.3 as the fix for CVE-2026-54057, and the record and field separators ; and = are consumed as delimiters, but every other printable character survives, which is sufficient to compose a shell command. A newline is available from handle_remote_ssh() in kitty/window.py, which writes the bytes yielded by get_ssh_data() in kittens/ssh/utils.py, the first of which begin with a newline, to the pseudoterminal master before any credential carried in the request is checked. The reply is framed as an OSC sequence carrying the escape code number, the field name, and the literal value ?. This results in execution of an attacker-chosen command with the privileges of the user running the terminal.

Published Sep 25, 2026Updated Sep 25, 2026Sources: NVD, Kovid Goyal (CNA), GitHub

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

Not scored

FIRST has not published a score

Affects

Kovid Goyal

kitty

CVSS base

9.3

critical

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade to kitty 0.49.0 or later.

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
Kovid Goyal	kitty	0.47.3 to < 0.49.0	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

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
9.3	CVSS 4.0	critical	—	—	Kovid Goyal (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-74Injection

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

CAPEC-66 · SQL InjectionCAPEC-7 · Blind SQL Injection

T1562.003Impair Defenses: Impair Command History Logging
T1574.006Hijack Execution Flow: Dynamic Linker Hijacking
T1574.007Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

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 /window.py, /screen.c, /ssh/utils.py.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

database audit 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 9.3 (AV:L)
Sep 25, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 25, 2026 · NVD

References

5 on the record

github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/commit/03fbdad855490470233954bc810e517027e5e640
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/commit/57bb144d96c0f9d48a2b0a6d43c9a23d2a091cbf
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/releases/tag/v0.49.0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
secur0.com/en/cna/cve-list/cve-2026-95832-kitty-color-control-command-execution
Vendor Advisory
www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54057
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

Kovid Goyalevery CVE for this vendor
Injectionsame class
CWE-74other 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-2026-95832 is Reflected unknown field names in the kitty colour control escape code allow command execution in the user's shell, a critical vulnerability affecting kitty from Kovid Goyal. 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-2026-95832. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. 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 9.3 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.