Security Resilience

CVE-2026-57149

RCE

Published
22 September 2026
Modified
23 September 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 9.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0064 50th percentile
Risk Priority 69 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS 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

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

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.007 JavaScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution.
T1059.011 Lua Execution
Adversaries may abuse Lua commands and scripts for execution.
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-2025-43466Shared CWE-95
CVE-2023-7245Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-35002Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-79678Shared CWE-95
CVE-2024-32649Shared CWE-95
CVE-2024-32647Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-71408Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-77810Shared CWE-95
CVE-2023-29511Shared 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

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.

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.

finds

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

prevents

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

References