Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-55388 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 37th 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)
EU & UK References
No EU or UK CSIRT advisories indexed for this CVE.
Vulnerability Data
piscina is a node.js worker pool implementation. Prior to 6.0.0-rc.2, 5.2.0, and 4.9.3, piscina's constructor and run() paths read the filename option via plain member access. Both reads fall through the prototype chain when the caller's options object doesn't have…
more
filename as an own property. When Object.prototype.filename is polluted upstream the inherited value flows to worker_threads.Worker import and the attacker's .mjs runs in the worker. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.0.0-rc.2, 5.2.0, and 4.9.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V15.3.6V1.3.1
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.
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'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 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 in development catches prototype-pollution flaws before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and object-handling controls that directly prevent prototype pollution.
Application security requirements explicitly call for safeguards against unsafe object attribute manipulation.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of prototype pollution through safe design patterns.
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.
Change-management processes ensure security fixes for prototype-pollution issues are tracked and deployed.