Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-31230 is a critical-severity Argument Injection (CWE-88) vulnerability in Notion (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 43th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Machine Learning Libraries; in the Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.
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-2026-29553
Vulnerability Data
The Adversarial Robustness Toolbox (ART) thru 1.20.1 contains a command-line argument injection vulnerability in its Kubeflow component (robustness_evaluation_fgsm_pytorch.py). The script uses the unsafe eval() function to parse string values provided via the --clip_values and --input_shape command-line arguments. This allows an…
more
attacker to inject arbitrary Python code into these arguments, which will be executed when eval() is called. The vulnerability can be exploited remotely if an attacker can control these arguments (e.g., through pipeline configuration or automated scripts), leading to arbitrary code execution on the system running the ART evaluation.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Machine Learning Libraries
- Risk Domain
- Supply Chain and Deployment
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: kubeflow
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing can discover argument-injection flaws in command-construction code but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops construction of command strings containing unneutralized delimiters or injected arguments.
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.
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 proper input validation and command construction to prevent argument injection.
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.
Security testing can detect argument injection but does not prevent it at the source.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.
Secure coding standards explicitly require proper neutralization of command arguments, directly eliminating CWE-88.
Change management can catch unsafe command patterns during reviews but is not a direct mitigation.