CVE-2026-41206
Parzivalhack Pyspector ≤ 0.1.8
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-41206 is a medium-severity Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs (CWE-184) vulnerability in Parzivalhack Pyspector. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 8th 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 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-2026-41206 affects PySpector, a static analysis security testing (SAST) framework designed for modern Python development workflows. The vulnerability resides in the plugin security validator, specifically the `PluginSecurity.validate_plugin_code` function, which relies on AST-based static analysis and an incomplete blocklist to prevent dangerous code from loading as plugins. In versions prior to 0.1.8, this blocklist can be bypassed using various unchecked Python constructs, enabling malicious plugin code to execute.
An attacker who can supply a malicious plugin file can exploit this issue when the plugin is installed and executed within PySpector. The CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) indicates that exploitation requires local access, low attack complexity, no privileges, and user interaction, such as loading the plugin. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution within the PySpector process, potentially compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-vp22-38m5-r39r) and related commits detail the fix in version 0.1.8, which addresses the incomplete blocklist. Security practitioners should upgrade to PySpector 0.1.8 or later and validate plugins from untrusted sources carefully, as the issue is tied to CWE-184 (incomplete list of disallowed inputs).
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25160
Vulnerability Data
PySpector is a static analysis security testing (SAST) Framework engineered for modern Python development workflows. The plugin security validator in PySpector uses AST-based static analysis to prevent dangerous code from being loaded as plugins. Prior to version 0.1.8, the blocklist…
more
implemented in `PluginSecurity.validate_plugin_code` is incomplete and can be bypassed using several Python constructs that are not checked. An attacker who can supply a plugin file can achieve arbitrary code execution within the PySpector process when that plugin is installed and executed. Version 0.1.8 fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 1 OS baseline
V3.5.2V4.4.2V16.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 requires validity checks on inputs, which structurally replaces incomplete deny-lists with complete allow-list or sanitization logic.
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 complete, positive input validation instead of incomplete denylists.
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 discover missing input checks, but does not prevent the weakness during development.
Application security requirements can mandate complete input validation rules, but the control itself does not prescribe how to build those rules.
Secure architecture principles include robust input validation design, yet the control is broader than this single weakness.
Secure coding standards directly require exhaustive allow-lists or complete deny-lists for inputs, addressing the root cause of incomplete disallowed-input lists.