CVE-2026-100842
Project-Monai Monai ≤ 1.6.0
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-100842 is a high-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability in Project-Monai Monai. Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-87846
Vulnerability Data
MONAI through 1.6.0 contains an eval injection vulnerability in _get_fake_spatial_shape() in monai/bundle/scripts.py. The function validates shape expressions with a helper that walks the AST and only collects ast.Name nodes, rejecting any name other than 'p' or 'n', before passing the…
more
string to eval(). Expressions built solely from constants and attribute, subscript, or call nodes (for example "(1).__class__.__bases__[0].__subclasses__()" or "int.__class__.__init__.__globals__") contain no ast.Name nodes and therefore bypass the allowlist. Because the shape value originates from bundle metadata consumed by _get_real_input_data and verify_net_in_out (reachable through the bundle 'verify_net_in_out' CLI flow), an attacker who can influence a bundle's metadata can escape the eval sandbox via object introspection chains and achieve code execution in this non-default flow.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and code analysis can discover eval-injection flaws but does not stop their introduction.
Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.
Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.
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.