Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33618 is a high-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability in Chamilo Chamilo Lms. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique JavaScript (T1059.007); ranked at the 24th 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-2026-33618 is an eval injection vulnerability in Chamilo LMS, an open-source learning management system. In versions prior to 2.0.0-RC.3, the PlatformConfigurationController::decodeSettingArray() method uses PHP's eval() function to parse platform settings retrieved from the database. This allows arbitrary PHP code injection into the settings, classified under CWE-95 (Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code). The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating high severity due to its potential for remote code execution.
An attacker requires administrative access to Chamilo LMS, which may be obtainable through a separate vulnerability referenced as Advisory 1. With admin privileges, the attacker can modify platform settings in the database to include malicious PHP code. This code executes whenever any user, including unauthenticated visitors, requests the /platform-config/list endpoint, enabling arbitrary code execution on the server with the privileges of the web server process.
The vulnerability is addressed in Chamilo LMS 2.0.0-RC.3, where the eval() usage is fixed, as detailed in the security advisory at https://github.com/chamilo/chamilo-lms/security/advisories/GHSA-hp4w-jmwc-pg7w and the patching commit at https://github.com/chamilo/chamilo-lms/commit/f2c382c94a3f153a4d7e5ce5686c5a219fd09b3b. Security practitioners should upgrade to the fixed version and review access controls for admin roles.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21537
Vulnerability Data
Chamilo LMS is a learning management system. Prior to .0.0-RC.3, the PlatformConfigurationController::decodeSettingArray() method uses PHP's eval() to parse platform settings from the database. An attacker with admin access (obtainable via Advisory 1) can inject arbitrary PHP code into the settings,…
more
which is then executed when any user (including unauthenticated) requests /platform-config/list. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.0-RC.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and code analysis can discover eval-injection flaws but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.
Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.
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 input neutralization and avoidance of unsafe dynamic evaluation.
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 in development can detect eval injection vulnerabilities before deployment.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and safe coding practices that directly prevent eval injection.
Application security requirements include rules against dynamic code execution of untrusted input.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe dynamic evaluation constructs.
Secure coding explicitly requires neutralization of input before dynamic evaluation, directly mitigating eval injection.
Separation of environments limits the blast radius if eval injection occurs in non-production.