Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-32640

RCE in Danthedeckie Simpleeval ≤ 1.0.5

Published
16 March 2026
Modified
15 July 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:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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 0.0052 42th percentile
Risk Priority 45 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-32640 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Danthedeckie Simpleeval. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 42th 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — 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-2026-32640 affects SimpleEval, a Python library designed for safely evaluating expressions in projects. Prior to version 1.0.5, the library's sandboxing mechanism fails to prevent leakage of dangerous modules or objects. This occurs when user-provided objects passed as names to SimpleEval expose disallowed modules or attributes directly within the sandbox, or when dangerous functions/modules are smuggled in as callbacks to otherwise safe functions. The issue is associated with CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code) and CWE-915 (Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes), earning 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 require no privileges or user interaction to exploit this vulnerability over a network with low complexity. By crafting malicious expressions that leverage the leaked objects or callbacks, they can bypass sandbox restrictions and access prohibited modules or functions, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution, data exfiltration, or system compromise on the host running the vulnerable SimpleEval instance.

The vulnerability is fully addressed in SimpleEval version 1.0.5, which patches the sandbox leakage issues. Official advisories, including the GitHub security advisory at GHSA-44vg-5wv2-h2hg and a Debian LTS announcement, recommend immediate upgrading to the fixed version for all affected deployments.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

SimpleEval is a library for adding evaluatable expressions into python projects. Prior to 1.0.5, objects (including modules) can leak dangerous modules through to direct access inside the sandbox. If the objects you've passed in as names to SimpleEval have modules…

more

or other disallowed / dangerous objects available as attrs. Additionally, dangerous functions or modules could be accessed by passing them as callbacks to other safe functions to call. The latest version 1.0.5 has this issue fixed. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.5.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.002 AppleScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse AppleScript for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-41139Shared CWE-915, CWE-94
CVE-2026-44495Shared CWE-915, CWE-94
CVE-2026-31251Shared CWE-915, CWE-94
CVE-2026-31252Shared CWE-915, CWE-94
CVE-2026-46517Shared CWE-915, CWE-94
CVE-2026-1340Shared CWE-94
CVE-2024-54724Shared CWE-94
CVE-2013-3906Shared CWE-94
CVE-2023-25261Shared CWE-94
CVE-2026-16144Shared CWE-94

Affected Assets

danthedeckie
simpleeval
≤ 1.0.5

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.3.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Enforces authorizations so that only permitted attributes may be modified on an object.

Limits the set of modifiable attributes a subject is authorized to touch.

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.

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 mostly match
prevents

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 none match
prevents

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.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe dynamic attribute assignment and require property allow-lists.

finds

Security testing can detect mass-assignment flaws but does not itself prevent them at runtime.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle requires input validation and object-property whitelisting that directly mitigates mass-assignment risks.

prevents

Application security requirements include explicit rules for allowable object attributes and safe deserialization.

prevents

Secure architecture principles mandate strict control over dynamic object modification and attribute binding.

prevents

Information access restriction limits who can modify objects but does not address which attributes may be changed.

References