Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-67401

SQLi

Published
09 September 2026
Modified
10 September 2026
CVSS Score v3 9.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.010 62th percentile
Risk Priority 70 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-2026-67401 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Cpanel (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.9 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 38% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A vulnerability in cPanel allows a mail-enabled account to achieve remote code execution as root through SQLi in EmailTrack component

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

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.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-5008Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-29390Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-5775Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-1608Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-8709Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-10738Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-27709Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-38890Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-6670Shared CWE-89
CVE-2019-12989Shared CWE-89

Affected Assets

Cpanel
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

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)
  • V6.2.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 (d) requires implementing a verifiable flaw remediation process and (e) requires correcting flaws identified during testing and evaluation. Both are enumerated imperative requirements, so removal is a defined standing function, and the locus is first-party code under development, so the si-2 CVE-mediation objection does not apply. Grade `mostly` follows NIST's own hedge, 'reduce or eliminate'.

Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.

Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.

System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.

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
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.

PR.AT-02 partial match
prevents

Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.

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.

prevents

Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.

prevents

Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.

prevents

Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.

prevents

Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.

finds

The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.

References