Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-7954 is a critical-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability in Spip (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique JavaScript (T1059.007); ranked in the top 0.2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The porte_plume plugin in SPIP versions prior to 4.30-alpha2, 4.2.13, and 4.1.16 contains an arbitrary code execution vulnerability tracked as CVE-2024-7954. The flaw, assigned CVSS 9.8 and mapped to CWE-95 and CWE-1286, resides in the plugin's handling of crafted input that is later evaluated as PHP.
A remote unauthenticated attacker can exploit the issue by sending a single malicious HTTP request, resulting in arbitrary PHP execution under the privileges of the SPIP web server user and full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Official SPIP advisories direct administrators to upgrade immediately to 4.3.0-alpha2, 4.2.13, or 4.1.16; third-party analyses at thinkloveshare.com and vulncheck.com confirm the pre-authentication vector and the necessity of the patch. The associated EPSS score remains elevated near 0.93 with no documented low-to-high trajectory after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-48791
Vulnerability Data
The porte_plume plugin used by SPIP before 4.30-alpha2, 4.2.13, and 4.1.16 is vulnerable to an arbitrary code execution vulnerability. A remote and unauthenticated attacker can execute arbitrary PHP as the SPIP user by sending a crafted HTTP request.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.1V1.4.2V2.1.1V2.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and code analysis can discover eval-injection flaws but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.
Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.
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 input neutralization and avoidance of unsafe dynamic evaluation.
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 in development can detect eval injection vulnerabilities before deployment.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and safe coding practices that directly prevent eval injection.
Application security requirements include rules against dynamic code execution of untrusted input.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe dynamic evaluation constructs.
Secure coding explicitly requires neutralization of input before dynamic evaluation, directly mitigating eval injection.
Separation of environments limits the blast radius if eval injection occurs in non-production.