CVE-2026-57170

CVE-2026-57170 is a high-severity code injection vulnerability in compliance-trestle (pip), affecting versions < 3.12.4. It is fixed in 3.12.4, 4.1.0.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

Trestle SSTI in Jinja2 include tags allows arbitrary code execution (Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-46439)

Reporter: Cavan Loughran, Celvex Group Inc.

Summary

The fix for CVE-2026-46439 (3.12.2 / 4.0.3) removed the recursive re-render loop in trestle/core/commands/author/jinja.py render_template, but the custom include tags in trestle/core/jinja/tags.py (MDSectionInclude, MDCleanInclude) still re-parse the CONTENT of an included markdown file as a Jinja2 template via Parser(self.environment, ).parse() in a plain (non-sandboxed) jinja2.Environment. Because the trestle markdown writers (ssp_io.py SSPMarkdownWriter, docs_control_writer.py DocsControlWriter) write OSCAL prose / component-description fields verbatim (the {{ -> [[ neutralization is applied to parameter tables only), attacker-controlled OSCAL data that flows into an included markdown file is interpreted as template code and can achieve arbitrary code execution on the runner. This is the same trust boundary and impact as CVE-2026-46439 via a sink the fix did not cover.

Affected versions

4.0.3 and earlier on this code path (the include tags predate and were untouched by the parent fix); the 3.12.x line likewise. Verified present in the fixed release 4.0.3 by direct source read.

Technical detail

Sink (UNCHANGED by the parent fix), trestle/core/jinja/tags.py:

MDSectionInclude.parse (the {% mdsection_include 'file.md' '# Section' %} tag), approximately:
md_content, _, _ = self.environment.loader.get_source(self.environment, markdown_source.value) # ~line 90
...
local_parser = Parser(self.environment, md_section.content.raw_text) # ~line 104 <-- RE-PARSE
top_level_output = local_parser.parse() # ~line 105
return top_level_output.body # ~line 106

MDCleanInclude.parse (the {% md_clean_include 'file.md' %} tag), approximately:
md_content, _, _ = self.environment.loader.get_source(self.environment, markdown_source.value) # ~line 141
...
local_parser = Parser(self.environment, content) # ~line 150 <-- RE-PARSE
top_level_output = local_parser.parse() # ~line 151
return top_level_output.body # ~line 152

Parser(self.environment, ).parse() compiles the included file's markdown text AS A JINJA TEMPLATE and splices the resulting AST .body directly into the host template's compilation. Any {{ ... }} / {% ... %} present in the included file is interpreted as template code, not emitted as literal text. The single-pass fix in render_template has no effect on this: the re-parse happens at compile time inside the tag, on a string the outer render loop never sees as data.

Environment is NOT sandboxed (UNCHANGED by the fix), trestle/core/commands/author/jinja.py _create_jinja_environment:
return Environment(loader=FileSystemLoader(template_folder), extensions=extensions(), trim_blocks=True, autoescape=True)
This is a plain jinja2.Environment, not jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment, so a re-parsed expression has full access to the usual Jinja SSTI gadget chain leading to OS command execution. autoescape=True HTML-escapes output but does not constrain expression evaluation, so it does not mitigate code execution.

Data bridge (partial neutralization only): the included markdown is, in trestle's documented workflow, produced from OSCAL by the trestle generators / writers. trestle/core/ssp_io.py SSPMarkdownWriter writes control statement prose (get_control_statement_ssp) and component implementation descriptions (prose = by_comp.description) into markdown with no Jinja-delimiter escaping. trestle/core/docs_control_writer.py DocsControlWriter writes control section prose (self._md_file.new_line(prose)) and part text raw. The maintainers DO know about the {{-in-data risk: ssp_io.py applies line.replace('{{', '[[').replace('}}', ']]') to neutralize delimiters, but ONLY inside the parameter-table method (_parameter_table). Control-statement prose and component description fields receive no such neutralization. So an OSCAL field such as an SSP component description, a control statement override, or a catalog part prose string that contains {{ }} lands verbatim in the generated markdown, and then the include tag re-parses and executes it.

Why this is a genuine incomplete fix (not the same bug): the parent CVE-2026-46439 re-evaluation site was the recursive loop in render_template (main template output) in commands/author/jinja.py, which the fix removed. THIS variant's re-evaluation site is Parser(self.environment, ...) inside mdsection_include / md_clean_include (included file content) in core/jinja/tags.py, which the fix did NOT touch, and which runs in a plain (non-sandboxed) Environment. Same class (SSTI -> RCE), same trust boundary (untrusted OSCAL data), different and still-live sink.

Reachability (non-destructive reasoning)

  1. A pipeline ingests OSCAL content (component-definition, SSP, profile, or catalog) that an external or lower-trust party can influence (a component supplier, a control-narrative contributor, an upstream catalog). This is precisely the parent's accepted attacker: a malicious actor supplies crafted OSCAL content in an automated pipeline (CI/CD).
  2. The pipeline runs trestle author ssp-generate (or equivalent) which writes the OSCAL prose/description fields into markdown verbatim. A field value such as {{ cycler.init.globals['os'].popen('id').read() }} survives intact (no neutralization on prose/description).
  3. The pipeline then runs trestle author jinja -i template.md.j2 ... where the template composes the document with {% md_clean_include 'generated_control.md' %} or {% mdsection_include 'generated_ssp.md' '# Some Section' %} (the documented populate-content-from-other-documents pattern).
  4. The include tag re-parses the generated markdown in the non-sandboxed environment and the embedded expression executes => code runs with the privileges of the trestle process (the CI runner).

Non-destructive confirmation: place a benign marker such as {{ 77 }} in an OSCAL prose / description field; run the generator that writes it to markdown; include that markdown with {% md_clean_include 'generated.md' %}; observe 49 rather than the literal {{ 77 }}, confirming evaluation. A malicious field would use the standard Jinja gadget chain; that is deliberately NOT included here.

Impact

Arbitrary code execution on the trestle process (the CI runner), under the same trust boundary that CVE-2026-46439 was assigned on (untrusted OSCAL data in an automated pipeline). Non-sandboxed environment => full RCE in a release that is patched for the parent CVE.

Remediation

(a) render the include re-parse through jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment, OR (b) emit the included file content as literal text (do not re-parse it as a template), OR (c) extend the {{ / }} -> [[ / ]] neutralization in ssp_io.py / docs_control_writer.py to ALL OSCAL prose / description / part-text writes, not just parameter tables. Option (a) or (b) is the durable fix; (c) is defense-in-depth.

Impact

Untrusted input is evaluated as executable code within the application's runtime environment. Typical impact: arbitrary code execution within the application's privilege context.

CVE-2026-57170 has a CVSS score of 7.8 (High). The vector is requires local access, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (3.12.4, 4.1.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

compliance-trestle (< 3.12.4) compliance-trestle (>= 4.0.0, < 4.1.0)

Security releases

compliance-trestle → 3.12.4 (pip) compliance-trestle → 4.1.0 (pip)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Upgrade the following packages to resolve this vulnerability:

compliance-trestle to 3.12.4 or later; compliance-trestle to 4.1.0 or later

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-57170? CVE-2026-57170 is a high-severity code injection vulnerability in compliance-trestle (pip), affecting versions < 3.12.4. It is fixed in 3.12.4, 4.1.0. Untrusted input is evaluated as executable code within the application's runtime environment.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-57170? CVE-2026-57170 has a CVSS score of 7.8 (High). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of compliance-trestle are affected by CVE-2026-57170? compliance-trestle (pip) versions < 3.12.4 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-57170? Yes. CVE-2026-57170 is fixed in 3.12.4, 4.1.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-57170 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-57170 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-57170 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  7. How do I fix CVE-2026-57170?
    • Upgrade compliance-trestle to 3.12.4 or later
    • Upgrade compliance-trestle to 4.1.0 or later

Other vulnerabilities in compliance-trestle

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.