CVE-2026-32128: FastGPT Python Sandbox Bypass of File-Write Restriction
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 25/100)
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (GitHub); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.34% (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.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
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
FastGPT is an AI Agent building platform. In 4.14.7 and earlier, FastGPT's Python Sandbox (fastgpt-sandbox) includes guardrails intended to prevent file writes (static detection + seccomp). These guardrails are bypassable by remapping stdout (fd 1) to an arbitrary writable file descriptor using fcntl. After remapping, writing via sys.stdout.write() still satisfies the seccomp rule write(fd==1), enabling arbitrary file creation/overwrite inside the sandbox container despite the intended no file writes restriction.
- Published
- Mar 11, 2026
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 28th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-184
Report tools
Action score
25
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 25 / 40 · 6.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 6.3
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
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
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- No fixed version yet
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 |
|---|---|---|
| fastgpt | fastgpt | cpe:2.3:a:fastgpt:fastgpt |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- fastgpt fastgptup to 4.14.7 inclusive
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.
labring FastGPT
- <= 4.14.7affected
Same product
fastgpt: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-34162FastGPT: Unauthenticated SSRF via httpTools Endpoint Leads to Internal API Key Theft40Plan
- CVE-2026-40351FastGPT: NoSQL Injection in loginByPassword leads to Authentication Bypass39Monitor
- CVE-2025-49131FastGPT Sandbox Vulnerable to Sandbox Bypass39Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-26003Feb 10, 2026 · FastGPT Plugin forwarding request is not authenticated, posing a serious risk of attack27Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-26075Feb 12, 2026 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in FastGPT27Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-33075Mar 20, 2026 · FastGPT has Arbitrary Code Execution in GitHub Actions via pull_request_target in fastgpt-preview-image.yml37Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub ×1
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub | stars:1 | 2026-08-18 |
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.
- Published
- First PoC+159 d
- TodayNov 8, 2026+241 d
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
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- low · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- low · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- Low
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-184 · Incomplete List of Disallowed InputsCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
nvd-secondary
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)
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Command DelimitersCAPEC-15likelihood: High · High
- Flash InjectionCAPEC-182likelihood: High · Medium
- Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input FiltersCAPEC-3likelihood: Medium · Medium
- Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation LayersCAPEC-43likelihood: Medium · High
- Argument InjectionCAPEC-6likelihood: High · High
- Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation LogicCAPEC-71likelihood: Medium · High
- User-Controlled FilenameCAPEC-73likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.