Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-34253 is a high-severity Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs (CWE-184) vulnerability in Getgrav Grav. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Template Injection (T1221); ranked in the top 20% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-1830
Vulnerability Data
Grav is a flat-file content management system. Prior to version 1.7.42, the denylist introduced in commit 9d6a2d to prevent dangerous functions from being executed via injection of malicious templates was insufficient and could be easily subverted in multiple ways --…
more
(1) using unsafe functions that are not banned, (2) using capitalised callable names, and (3) using fully-qualified names for referencing callables. Consequently, a low privileged attacker with login access to Grav Admin panel and page creation/update permissions is able to inject malicious templates to obtain remote code execution. A patch in version 1.7.42 improves the denylist.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 1 OS baseline
V3.5.2V1.3.2V1.3.7V1.3.10
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Makes persistent code injection into loaded programs impossible when the executable image itself resides on hardware-protected read-only media.
Dynamically generated code can be produced and executed inside the isolated chamber, preventing host compromise from code-injection payloads.
Validates inputs used in dynamic code generation to block injected directives.
Directly prevents execution of attacker-supplied code written into data memory regions.
Spam filters rely on evolving blacklists, signatures, and heuristics of disallowed message patterns; keeping them updated per the control directly mitigates incomplete disallowed-input lists.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require complete, positive input validation instead of incomplete denylists.
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can discover missing input checks, but does not prevent the weakness during development.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and sanitization that directly prevents template-injection weaknesses.
Application security requirements can mandate complete input validation rules, but the control itself does not prescribe how to build those rules.
Secure architecture principles include robust input validation design, yet the control is broader than this single weakness.
Secure coding standards directly require exhaustive allow-lists or complete deny-lists for inputs, addressing the root cause of incomplete disallowed-input lists.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.