Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33154 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Dynaconf Dynaconf. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (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; 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.
Dynaconf, a configuration management tool for Python, versions prior to 3.2.13, contains a Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability identified as CVE-2026-33154. The flaw arises in the @Jinja resolver, where Dynaconf evaluates template expressions embedded in configuration values without a sandboxed environment when the jinja2 package is installed. This issue, published on 2026-03-20, carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and maps to CWEs 94, 1336, and 78.
An attacker requires low privileges (PR:L) and must be able to supply or influence configuration values containing malicious Jinja2 template expressions. Exploitation is possible over the network (AV:N) without user interaction (UI:N), though it demands high attack complexity (AC:H). Successful attacks can result in high impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H), potentially enabling remote code execution on the affected system.
The vulnerability is patched in Dynaconf version 3.2.13. Mitigation involves upgrading to this version or later. Key resources include the patching commit at https://github.com/dynaconf/dynaconf/commit/2fbb45ee36b8c0caa5b924fe19f3c1a5e8603fa7, the release announcement at https://github.com/dynaconf/dynaconf/releases/tag/3.2.13, and the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/dynaconf/dynaconf/security/advisories/GHSA-pxrr-hq57-q35p.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13790
Vulnerability Data
dynaconf is a configuration management tool for Python. Prior to version 3.2.13, Dynaconf is vulnerable to Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) due to unsafe template evaluation in the @Jinja resolver. When the jinja2 package is installed, Dynaconf evaluates template expressions embedded…
more
in configuration values without a sandboxed environment. This issue has been patched in version 3.2.13.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2V1.3.7V1.3.10V1.2.5
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.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Security engineering principles require use of safe templating APIs and proper escaping of external input.
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).
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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 template-injection flaws but does not itself implement neutralization controls.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and sanitization that directly prevents template-injection weaknesses.
Application security requirements explicitly call for neutralizing special elements in template engines.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of unsafe template processing but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.
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.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.