Skip to content

Super-linter is vulnerable to command injection via crafted filenames in Super-linter Action

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 9, 2026 in super-linter/super-linter • Updated Feb 9, 2026

Package

actions super-linter/super-linter (GitHub Actions)

Affected versions

>= 6.0.0, < 8.3.1

Patched versions

8.3.1
actions super-linter/super-linter/slim (GitHub Actions)
>= 6.0.0, < 8.3.1
8.3.1

Description

Summary

The Super-linter GitHub Action is vulnerable to command injection via crafted filenames. When this action is used in downstream GitHub Actions workflows, an attacker can submit a pull request that introduces a file whose name contains shell command substitution syntax, such as $(...). In affected Super-linter versions, runtime scripts may execute the embedded command during file discovery processing, enabling arbitrary command execution in the workflow runner context. This can be used to disclose the job’s GITHUB_TOKEN depending on how the workflow configures permissions.

Details

The issue appears originates in the logic that scans the repository for changed files to check.

  1. Use a workflow that runs Super-linter on pull_request events.
  2. Open a pull request that adds a new file with a crafted filename containing command substitution and an outbound request that includes $GITHUB_TOKEN.
  3. Run the workflow.

Impact

  • Arbitrary command execution in the context of the workflow run that invokes Super-linter (triggered by attacker-controlled filenames in a PR).
  • Credential exposure / misuse: the injected command can read environment variables available to the action, including GITHUB_TOKEN.

The level of exposure depends on the source of the pull request.

To actively exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs have the ability to run workflows without any approval from the repository admin.

Also, the GITHUB_TOKEN needs to have unconstrained access to repository resources. Even in that case, for pull request coming from forked repositories, no secrets are passed to the forked repository when running workflows triggered by pull_request events, and the GITHUB_TOKEN drops and write permission on the source repository source.

Finally, although not specific to this vulnerability, we recommend auditing workflow_call and pull_request_target workflows because they can lead to compromise, regardless of whether you're using Super-linter, or not, as explained by this GitHub Enterprise doc.

References

@ferrarimarco ferrarimarco published to super-linter/super-linter Feb 9, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 9, 2026
Reviewed Feb 9, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 9, 2026
Last updated Feb 9, 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
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
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:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/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.
(11th percentile)

Weaknesses

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

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

CVE ID

CVE-2026-25761

GHSA ID

GHSA-r79c-pqj3-577x

Credits

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