Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-32304 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Locutus Locutus. 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 44th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.
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-2026-32304 is a high-severity code injection vulnerability (CWE-94) in the Locutus JavaScript library, which emulates standard libraries from other programming languages for educational purposes. In versions prior to 3.0.14, the create_function(args, code) function passes both arguments directly to the JavaScript Function constructor without sanitization, enabling arbitrary code execution. This issue, published on 2026-03-13, is distinct from CVE-2026-29091, which affected v2.x via call_user_func_array and eval(); it specifically targets the new Function() usage in v3.x. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Remote attackers can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity, requiring no privileges, authentication, or user interaction. By supplying malicious args and code parameters to create_function, attackers achieve remote code execution (RCE) in the JavaScript environment where Locutus is loaded, such as browsers or Node.js applications, potentially leading to full compromise with high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The Locutus security advisory (GHSA-vh9h-29pq-r5m8) and release notes for v3.0.14 confirm the vulnerability has been fixed by adding proper sanitization to the create_function implementation. Security practitioners should update to Locutus 3.0.14 or later to mitigate the issue.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-11718
Vulnerability Data
Locutus brings stdlibs of other programming languages to JavaScript for educational purposes. Prior to 3.0.14, the create_function(args, code) function passes both parameters directly to the Function constructor without any sanitization, allowing arbitrary code execution. This is distinct from CVE-2026-29091 which…
more
was call_user_func_array using eval() in v2.x. This finding affects create_function using new Function() in v3.x. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.0.14.
- CWE(s)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Change management can catch unsafe command patterns during reviews but is not a direct mitigation.