Skip to content

claude-code-cache-fix vulnerable to local code execution via Python triple-quote injection in tools/quota-statusline.sh

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 7, 2026 in cnighswonger/claude-code-cache-fix • Updated Jun 8, 2026

Package

npm claude-code-cache-fix (npm)

Affected versions

>= 3.5.0, < 3.5.2

Patched versions

3.5.2

Description

Summary

tools/quota-statusline.sh (introduced in v3.5.0) interpolates Claude Code's hook stdin payload directly into a Python triple-quoted string literal. A ''' byte sequence in any user-controlled field of the payload closes the literal early and lets following bytes execute as Python in the user's Claude Code process.

Affected versions

  • v3.5.0
  • v3.5.1

Patched versions

  • v3.5.2

Affected configurations

Users who wired tools/quota-statusline.sh into Claude Code's statusLine configuration. The v3.5.0 README explicitly recommends this setup, so most users on v3.5.0/v3.5.1 with the recommended setup are affected.

Attack chain

Claude Code's statusline hook payload reflects user-controlled paths (cwd, workspace.current_dir, workspace.project_dir, transcript_path). Apostrophes are legal in POSIX filesystem paths.

  1. A hostile directory name containing '''+payload+''' lands on disk via any normal vector — git clone, archive extraction, npm package, downloaded zip, etc.
  2. The victim has the recommended tools/quota-statusline.sh wired into their CC statusLine config.
  3. The victim cds anywhere a hostile path is reachable.
  4. CC fires the statusline hook on every redraw. The Python literal closes early. The injected bytes execute as Python in the user's process.

Severity

Local code execution at user privilege. Persistent re-fire on every statusline redraw. No user interaction beyond cd-ing into the hostile path. The user's shell, CC session, files, SSH keys, and any locally-accessible credentials are reachable from the executed code.

Vulnerable pattern

input=$(cat)
result=$(python3 -c "
    stdin_data = json.loads('''$input''') if '''$input''' else {}
")

Fix

Capture stdin in bash, export to env, and pipe the Python source through a single-quoted heredoc (<<'PYEOF'). Single-quoting disables ALL bash interpolation inside the body. Python reads the JSON via os.environ.get('CC_INPUT'), where the bytes are inert at every layer.

CC_INPUT=$(cat)
export CC_INPUT

python3 <<'PYEOF' 2>/dev/null
import os, json
try:
    cc_input = json.loads(os.environ.get('CC_INPUT') or '{}')
except Exception:
    cc_input = {}
# ...
PYEOF

Workarounds

Until upgrading to v3.5.2:

  • Disable the statusline by removing the statusLine entry from ~/.claude/settings.json, or
  • Replace tools/quota-statusline.sh with a script that does NOT pass stdin through python3 -c "..." (a heredoc + env var rewrite is safe)

Credit

Reported by Jakob Linke (@schuay) via GitHub issue #108.

Timeline

  • 2026-05-07 — reported (#108)
  • 2026-05-07 — confirmed, fix implemented (#110)
  • 2026-05-07 — v3.5.2 published

References

@vsits-proxy-builder vsits-proxy-builder published to cnighswonger/claude-code-cache-fix May 7, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 13, 2026
Reviewed May 13, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 27, 2026
Last updated Jun 8, 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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability Low
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:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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.
(5th 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.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-45136

GHSA ID

GHSA-g3xq-3gmv-qq8g

Source code

Credits

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