Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-76833

Public PoC
Published
20 August 2026
Modified
20 August 2026
CVSS Score v4 8.4
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0015 5th percentile
Risk Priority 55 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-76833 is a high-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique JavaScript (T1059.007); ranked at the 5th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

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

Vulnerability Data

@cgauge/yaml npm package contains an arbitrary code execution vulnerability that allows attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript by embedding a custom !js YAML tag whose construct callback unconditionally calls eval() on attacker-supplied string values during document parsing. Any application parsing untrusted…

more

YAML input with this library exposes full Node.js runtime authority, including environment variable access, filesystem read/write, network access, and subprocess execution, with no safe-mode alternative or opt-out mechanism available.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059.007 JavaScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution.
T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python 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-2026-4837Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-45406Shared CWE-95
CVE-2024-10633Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-4001Shared CWE-95
CVE-2023-26323Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-77810Shared CWE-95
CVE-2024-32649Shared CWE-95
CVE-2024-8512Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-31254Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-61955Shared 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.

Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.

Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.

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 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 development life cycle mandates input validation and safe coding practices that directly prevent eval injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules against dynamic code execution of untrusted input.

prevents

Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe dynamic evaluation constructs.

prevents

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

References