CVE-2026-7669
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-7669 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as NLP and Transformers; in the Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.
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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26802
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was detected in sgl-project SGLang up to 0.5.9. Impacted is the function get_tokenizer of the file python/sglang/srt/utils/hf_transformers_utils.py of the component HuggingFace Transformer Handler. The manipulation of the argument trust_remote_code with the input False as part of Boolean results…
more
in code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitability is considered difficult. In get_tokenizer(), when the caller passes trust_remote_code=False and HuggingFace transformers v5 returns a TokenizersBackend instance (the generic fallback for tokenizer classes not in the registry), SGLang silently re-invokes AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained with trust_remote_code=True, overriding the caller's explicit security setting. A model repository containing a malicious tokenizer.py referenced via auto_map in tokenizer_config.json will execute arbitrary Python in the SGLang process during this second call. No log line or warning is emitted. The override affects all current SGLang versions because transformers==5.3.0 is pinned in pyproject.toml. Both tokenizer_mode="auto" and tokenizer_mode="slow" are affected. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- NLP and Transformers
- Risk Domain
- Supply Chain and Deployment
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: huggingface, transformers
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.