Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-26980 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Ghost Ghost. Its CVSS base score is 9.4 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 0.7% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Ghost is a Node.js content management system affected by CVE-2026-26980, which permits unauthenticated arbitrary reads from the database in versions 3.24.0 through 6.19.0. The flaw is tracked under CWE-89 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.4, reflecting network-accessible attack vectors with no required authentication or user interaction and high impact on confidentiality and integrity.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can exploit the vulnerability to retrieve arbitrary database contents, enabling broad data exposure and potential follow-on manipulation within the affected Ghost installations.
The issue was addressed in Ghost version 6.19.1, as noted in the project's GitHub security advisory GHSA-w52v-v783-gw97, the corresponding release tag, and the commit 30868d632b2252b638bc8a4c8ebf73964592ed91 that resolved the underlying query-handling defect. Administrators should upgrade to the patched release to eliminate the exposure.
The associated EPSS score reached a peak of 0.6349 with a current value of 0.5666, indicating sustained exploitation interest following disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8400
Vulnerability Data
Ghost is a Node.js content management system. Versions 3.24.0 through 6.19.0 allow unauthenticated attackers to perform arbitrary reads from the database. This issue has been fixed in version 6.19.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.
Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.
System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.
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 target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.
Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.
Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.
Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.