Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-14380 is a high-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability in Perl Dbi. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique JavaScript (T1059.007); ranked at the 39th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-42123
Vulnerability Data
DBI versions before 1.650 for Perl are vulnerable to code injection via caller-influenced Profile. When a string is assigned to a DBI handle's Profile attribute, DBI splits it into path, package and arguments, and interpolates the package part in a…
more
string eval with no validation of the package name. Any caller-influenced value that reaches the Profile attribute is therefore arbitrary Perl code execution, including calls to run system commands. The Profile attribute can be set from three different sources that can carry untrusted data: the DBI_PROFILE environment variable, a direct attribute assignment, and a DSN driver-attribute clause dbi:Driver(Profile=>SPEC):db. An attacker controlling any of those inputs runs arbitrary Perl in the host process. The strongest remote position is a network-exposed DBI::Gofer / DBI::ProxyServer whose per-request DSN reaches the Profile attribute, letting a client execute code on the broker host.
- 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.
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.