Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-57149 is a critical-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.9 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 50th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-84802
Vulnerability Data
plone.app.portlets.portlets provides a Plone-specific user interface for plone.portlets, as well as a standard set of portlets that ship with Plone. Starting in version 5.0.0 and prior to versions 5.0.8, 6.0.4, and 7.0.2, the Classic portlet (plone.app.portlets.portlets.classic) used its user-supplied template/macro…
more
fields to build a TALES path expression that was then evaluated by the TAL path() helper. Because the value was interpreted as a full TALES expression, a user able to add or edit a Classic portlet could supply a crafted value that escapes simple path traversal and is evaluated as arbitrary code. This is exploitable by any authenticated user who can configure a Classic portlet - which, with the default role map, includes regular users on their personal dashboard. The result is code execution in the context of the Plone process, i.e. a privilege escalation across the trust boundary between an authenticated web user and the server-side process. The problem has been patched in `plone.app.portlets` 5.0.8, 6.0.4, and 7.0.2. Some workarounds are available. Restrict who can manage portlets: remove the `plone.app.portlets.ManageOwnPortlets` permission from untrusted roles, and limit Manage portlets to trusted administrators (usually this is already restricted to the Manager and Site Administrator roles). Where the Classic portlet is not needed, unregister it so it cannot be added. This would need to be done by editing a `portlets.xml` in your own code. One may also effectively disable showing the classic portlet by customising its template. In the Zope Management Interface go to the `portal_view_customizations` tool, locate the `classic.pt` template and click it. Click the Customize button. Remove all text and replace it with `<div>The classic portlet was disabled.</div>`. (This is not a recommended way of customizing a template, but in this case it is quite effective.)
- 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.
Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.
Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.
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 coding explicitly requires neutralization of input before dynamic evaluation, directly mitigating eval injection.