Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-31900

Python Black ≤ 26.3.0

Published
11 March 2026
Modified
16 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 8.7
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0046 38th percentile
Risk Priority 39 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-31900 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Python Black. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 38th 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.

Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary

Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.

CVE-2026-31900 is a high-severity vulnerability in the GitHub Action provided by Black, an uncompromising Python code formatter. The issue arises when the action is configured with the `use_pyproject: true` option, which reads the Black version from the repository's `pyproject.toml` file. A malicious actor can exploit this by submitting a pull request that modifies `pyproject.toml` to reference a direct URL pointing to a malicious repository, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution within the GitHub Action's context.

The vulnerability can be exploited by any unauthenticated attacker with the ability to submit a pull request to a target repository using the affected Black GitHub Action. No special privileges, user interaction, or complex setup is required, as indicated by the CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). Successful exploitation grants the attacker arbitrary code execution in the action's runner environment, enabling access to any secrets or permissions configured for that workflow, such as repository tokens or deployment credentials.

The Black project addressed this in version 26.3.0, as detailed in the security advisory (GHSA-v53h-f6m7-xcgm) and corresponding commit (0a2560b981364dde4c8cf8ce9d164c40669a8611). Security practitioners should update to Black 26.3.0 or later, disable the `use_pyproject: true` option in workflows, and review pull request workflows for supply chain risks, particularly in repositories relying on dynamic dependency resolution from untrusted sources.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Black is the uncompromising Python code formatter. Black provides a GitHub action for formatting code. This action supports an option, use_pyproject: true, for reading the version of Black to use from the repository pyproject.toml. A malicious pull request could edit…

more

pyproject.toml to use a direct URL reference to a malicious repository. This could lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the GitHub Action. Attackers could then gain access to secrets or permissions available in the context of the action. Version 26.3.0 fixes this vulnerability.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1036.001 Invalid Code Signature Stealth
Adversaries may attempt to mimic features of valid code signatures to increase the chance of deceiving a user, analyst, or tool.
T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-32274Same product: Python Black
CVE-2026-3644Same vendor: Python
CVE-2026-4519Same vendor: Python
CVE-2023-24329Same vendor: Python
CVE-2023-33595Same vendor: Python
CVE-2025-13462Same vendor: Python
CVE-2026-54058Same vendor: Python
CVE-2026-59198Same vendor: Python
CVE-2025-12781Same vendor: Python
CVE-2024-21549Shared CWE-20

Affected Assets

python
black
≤ 26.3.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

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 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.

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.

finds

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

prevents

Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.

prevents

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

prevents

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

none

Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

RHEL 8 (1 rule)
  • V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20

References