CVE-2026-2586
RCE in Eclipse Glassfish ≤ 8.0.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-2586 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Eclipse Glassfish. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 44% 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-30939
Vulnerability Data
An authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was identified in GlassFish's Administration Console. A user with access to the panel can send crafted requests that allow the execution of arbitrary operating system commands with the privileges of the application service…
more
user. This issue affects Eclipse GlassFish: from 8.0.0 to 8.0.1, fixed in 8.0.2; 7.1.0, fixed in 7.1.1; from 7.0.0 to 7.0.25, fixed in 7.0.26. Impact on versions from 5.1.0 to 6.2.5 is unknown.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2V1.3.5V4.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Security engineering principles include requirements for safe construction and sanitization of dynamic statements, structurally preventing expression-language injection at design time.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
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.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent expression-language injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including EL injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect EL injection but does not itself implement the fix.