CVE-2026-97693: Yuxi sandbox isolation failure allows cross-tenant access and internal service compromise
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.
- 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: xerrors Yuxi 0.7.1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to xerrors Yuxi 0.7.1 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
Yuxi is a large-model-based intelligent knowledge base and knowledge graph agent development platform. From 0.6.0.beta1 until 0.7.1, there is insufficient isolation between execution-capable Docker sandboxes and trusted application services. A low-privileged authenticated user who can execute commands in their own sandbox can reach other tenants' sandbox APIs, access their files and secrets, execute commands in active sandboxes, and enumerate, create, or delete sandboxes through the unauthenticated provisioner without knowing administrator, database, or MinIO credentials. Sandboxes can also reach shared internal services; if shipped default service credentials remain unchanged, an attacker can use them, and if the exposed PostgreSQL account is a superuser, obtain command execution in the PostgreSQL container. These paths can disclose or modify cross-tenant data and sandbox state or cause denial of service through sandbox deletion without a container escape or kernel vulnerability. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.7.1. Existing deployments must separately rotate persisted PostgreSQL, Neo4j, or MinIO credentials that were previously set to documented or shipped defaults because upgrading the Compose files does not automatically rotate them.
- Published
- Nov 4, 2026
- Updated
- Nov 4, 2026
- EPSS
- —
- CWE
- CWE-77
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 · —
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 9.9
- 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
- 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.
—
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.
xerrors Yuxi
- >= 0.6.0.beta1, < 0.7.1affected
Same product
xerrors: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-50561Yuxi has a JWT Authentication Bypass Leading to Cross-Instance Administrator Token Reuse37Monitor
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 |
|---|---|---|
| xerrors Yuxi | 0.7.1 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
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.
- Published
- Fix recordedsame day
- TodayNov 5, 2026same day
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.
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.
—
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
- CVE-2026-5056184 days apartYuxi has a JWT Authentication Bypass Leading to Cross-Instance Administrator Token Reuse37Monitor
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-77 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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)
- LDAP InjectionCAPEC-136likelihood: High · High
- Command DelimitersCAPEC-15likelihood: High · High
- IMAP/SMTP Command InjectionCAPEC-183Medium
- Command InjectionCAPEC-248likelihood: Medium · High
- Manipulating Writeable Terminal DevicesCAPEC-40likelihood: High · Very High
- Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation LayersCAPEC-43likelihood: Medium · High
- Manipulating Writeable Configuration FilesCAPEC-75likelihood: High · Very High
- Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-76likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Exploit maturity— → none
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.