CVE-2026-27952: Agenta has Python Sandbox Escape, Leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE)
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 39/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.56% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: agenta (PyPI) 0.48.1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to agenta (PyPI) 0.48.1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Agenta is an open-source LLMOps platform. In Agenta-API prior to version 0.48.1, a Python sandbox escape vulnerability existed in Agenta's custom code evaluator. Agenta used RestrictedPython as a sandboxing mechanism for user-supplied evaluator code, but incorrectly whitelisted the `numpy` package as safe within the sandbox. This allowed authenticated users to bypass the sandbox and achieve arbitrary code execution on the API server. The escape path was through `numpy.ma.core.inspect`, which exposes Python's introspection utilities — including `sys.modules` — thereby providing access to unfiltered system-level functionality like `os.system`. This vulnerability affects the Agenta self-hosted platform (API server), not the SDK when used as a standalone Python library. The custom code evaluator runs server-side within the API process. The issue is fixed in v0.48.1 by removing `numpy` from the sandbox allowlist. In later versions (v0.60+), the RestrictedPython sandbox was removed entirely and replaced with a different execution model.
- Published
- Feb 25, 2026
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.5% · 47th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-94
Report tools
Action score
39
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.9 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.5%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.9
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 8.8
- 1.1 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| agentatech | agenta | cpe:2.3:a:agentatech:agenta |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- agentatech agentabefore 0.48.1
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Agenta-AI agenta-api
- < 0.48.1affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | agenta | before 0.48.1 | 0.48.1 |
Same product
agentatech: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-27961Agenta's Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) via custom evaluator Jinja2 templates allows RCE35Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| PyPI:agenta | 0.48.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →