GHSA-C73Q-FVJV-39J2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-25 18:31 – Updated: 2026-09-25 18:31Missing Authorization in the askpass escape code handler in kitty from 0.25.0 before 0.49.0 allows a local user other than the one running the terminal to obtain the text typed into a prompt that kitty itself displays, because handle_remote_askpass() in kitty/window.py opens the POSIX shared memory object named in the escape code, parses a prompt definition out of it, and writes the user's answer back into an object of that same name, without at any point checking that the object is owned by the user running kitty or that its permissions exclude other users. The equivalent consumer of the same SharedMemory class in the ssh kitten performs exactly that check; the askpass path did not. The handler is reached through a device control string processed from the byte stream of the window, so the attacker must also cause bytes of their choosing to be displayed by the victim's terminal. Where the POSIX shared memory namespace is shared between the two users, a second local user can create an object with permissions that allow the victim to read and write it, cause the victim's kitty to render a prompt of the attacker's choosing, including a masked password prompt, and read the typed secret back out of the object afterwards. The prompt text is additionally passed to the display without control character sanitisation, so it can overwrite the warning line kitty prints above it. The answer is written by reopening an object of that name when the user answers, rather than through the handle already held. This results in disclosure of a secret typed by the victim to a second local user, and does not require any privilege on the victim's account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-95835"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-25T17:17:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization in the askpass escape code handler in kitty from 0.25.0 before 0.49.0 allows a local user other than the one running the terminal to obtain the text typed into a prompt that kitty itself displays, because handle_remote_askpass() in kitty/window.py opens the POSIX shared memory object named in the escape code, parses a prompt definition out of it, and writes the user\u0027s answer back into an object of that same name, without at any point checking that the object is owned by the user running kitty or that its permissions exclude other users. The equivalent consumer of the same SharedMemory class in the ssh kitten performs exactly that check; the askpass path did not. The handler is reached through a device control string processed from the byte stream of the window, so the attacker must also cause bytes of their choosing to be displayed by the victim\u0027s terminal. Where the POSIX shared memory namespace is shared between the two users, a second local user can create an object with permissions that allow the victim to read and write it, cause the victim\u0027s kitty to render a prompt of the attacker\u0027s choosing, including a masked password prompt, and read the typed secret back out of the object afterwards. The prompt text is additionally passed to the display without control character sanitisation, so it can overwrite the warning line kitty prints above it. The answer is written by reopening an object of that name when the user answers, rather than through the handle already held. This results in disclosure of a secret typed by the victim to a second local user, and does not require any privilege on the victim\u0027s account.",
"id": "GHSA-c73q-fvjv-39j2",
"modified": "2026-09-25T18:31:28Z",
"published": "2026-09-25T18:31:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-95835"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/commit/3281919056c442e4ba6f5abed7ee2c5130de31ff"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/releases/tag/v0.49.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://secur0.com/en/cna/cve-list/cve-2026-95835-kitty-askpass-shared-memory-ownership"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.