CVE-2026-34168: Coolify Command Injection via LocalPersistentVolume Name

Technical summary

The vulnerability exists in the LocalPersistentVolume.name field, which is interpolated directly into Docker volume shell commands without proper argument escaping. When a storage resource is deleted, the unsanitized name parameter is passed to a shell command, enabling OS command injection via metacharacters (e.g., backticks, $(), semicolons, pipes). An authenticated attacker can craft a malicious storage name containing shell syntax that executes arbitrary commands on the managed servers at deletion time. The attack surface is the Coolify API or UI where volume names are specified.

Business impact

Successful exploitation allows an authenticated internal user or compromised Coolify admin account to execute arbitrary commands on all servers managed by that Coolify instance. This could result in data exfiltration, lateral movement, persistent backdoors, or destruction of containerized workloads and databases. Organizations using Coolify for multi-tenant or critical infrastructure management face risk of complete infrastructure compromise if an attacker gains even low-privilege authentication credentials.

Affected systems

Coolify versions prior to 4.0.0-beta.471 are affected. The vulnerability requires the attacker to have authentication credentials (e.g., valid user account). It impacts any installation where users can create or manage persistent volumes and where backend servers are accessible via Docker commands.

Exploitability

Exploitability is moderate to high. The attack requires prior authentication, which raises the barrier compared to unauthenticated exploits, but Coolify's open-source nature and self-hosted deployment model mean credential compromise or insider threat is plausible. The injection mechanism is straightforward—no complex race conditions or timing—so exploitation can be reliable once credentials are obtained. No user interaction is required beyond the attacker triggering volume deletion.

Remediation

Upgrade Coolify to version 4.0.0-beta.471 or later. Organizations unable to upgrade immediately should restrict Coolify user access to trusted personnel only, monitor deletion events on managed volumes, and implement network segmentation so Coolify servers cannot reach critical infrastructure if compromised. Alternatively, disable user-initiated volume deletion if the feature is not essential.

Patch guidance

Update Coolify to 4.0.0-beta.471 or later. Verify the patch in the official Coolify GitHub repository and release notes before deploying. Test the patched version in a non-production environment first to ensure compatibility with your deployment. After patching, review and audit any storage volumes created by users prior to the update for suspicious names.

Detection guidance

Monitor Coolify logs for volume deletion operations and inspect the volume names being deleted for unusual shell metacharacters (backticks, $(), $({}), semicolons, pipes, &&, ||). Implement alerting for volume deletions followed by unexpected process execution on backend servers. Review Docker daemon logs on managed servers for command execution patterns that correlate with volume operations. Use file integrity monitoring on critical application directories to detect unauthorized modifications.

Why prioritize this

This vulnerability merits prompt patching despite its authentication requirement. The CVSS score of 8.8 reflects high impact (confidentiality, integrity, and availability all compromised). For organizations using Coolify to manage production infrastructure, a single compromised credential or insider threat can cascade into full infrastructure takeover. The straightforward exploit mechanism and potential for lateral movement make it a priority for teams relying on Coolify for critical workloads.

Risk score, explained

The CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8 (HIGH) reflects: network-accessible attack vector, low attack complexity (no special conditions required), low privilege bar (authenticated user), no user interaction needed, and unconstrained scope with complete compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The main mitigating factor is the requirement for prior authentication, which prevents mass exploitation but does not reduce severity for organizations where credential compromise is realistic.

Frequently asked questions