Security Resilience

CVE-2026-45293

Published
28 July 2026
Modified
24 October 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 8.6
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0025 15th percentile
Risk Priority 59 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS scores by FIRST (EPSS SIG), generated by Empirical Security. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2026-45293 is a high-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 15th 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.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

WordPress Coding Standards is a set of PHP_CodeSniffer rules (sniffs) that enforce WordPress coding conventions. From 0.14.1 until 3.4.1, the WordPress.WP.EnqueuedResourceParameters sniff (active in the WordPress and WordPress-Extra rulesets) reconstructed the $ver argument passed to functions such as wp_enqueue_script() and…

more

ran it through eval() inside its is_falsy() method, so a maliciously crafted argument such as 'system'('id') would execute during a scan; as a result, running PHPCS with WordPressCS over untrusted PHP (for example a CI pipeline that lints pull requests, or a developer reviewing third-party code) could lead to arbitrary command execution on the scanning host. The WordPress-Core and WordPress-Docs rulesets are not affected. This issue is fixed in version 3.4.1.

CWE(s)
CWE-95

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.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python commands and scripts for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.007 JavaScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059.011 Lua Execution
Adversaries may abuse Lua commands and scripts for execution.
attack.mitre.org →
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1212 Exploitation for Credential Access Credential Access
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to collect credentials.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-76190Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-50187Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-48273Shared CWE-95
CVE-2024-10633Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-27603Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-48317Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-53837Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-65141Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-49598Shared CWE-95
CVE-2024-36404Shared CWE-95

Affected Assets

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)
  • V1.3.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and code analysis can discover eval-injection flaws but does not stop their introduction.

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools partial match

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
blocks

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.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing in development can detect eval injection vulnerabilities before deployment.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding explicitly requires neutralization of input before dynamic evaluation, directly mitigating eval injection.

References