CVE-2026-78030
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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-2026-78030 is a critical-severity Unsafe Reflection (CWE-470) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Reflective Code Loading (T1620); ranked in the top 48% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-83584
Vulnerability Data
DBI versions before 1.653 for Perl load arbitrary modules via unvalidated dbm_type and dbm_mldbm attributes in DBD::DBM. DBD::DBM passes the dbm_type and dbm_mldbm connect attributes to require without checking that the value names a module. require treats a path-shaped string…
more
as a literal filename and does not consult @INC, so the attribute chooses the file that Perl loads and runs. The MLDBM::Serializer:: prefix that DBD::DBM prepends to dbm_mldbm is not a boundary: only the :: separators are rewritten to /, so a value containing / traverses out of the serializer directory. The value is also assigned to $MLDBM::Serializer, which MLDBM requires the same way when it ties the table. A caller that lets an untrusted party influence either attribute, for example through a DSN fragment or a parameter that selects a storage backend, runs the file-scope code of whatever module the value names. For example, my $dsn = "dbi:DBM:f_dir=/var/db;dbm_type=../../Untrusted.pm" my $dbh = DBI->connect( $dsn ); Note that DBD::Gofer forwards connect attributes to the server side, and DBI::ProxyServer checks only that a DSN starts with a driver prefix.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces authorization checks on the code or classes ultimately invoked, blocking unauthorized selections even if reflection is used.
Limits privileges of any code reached through unsafe reflection, reducing blast radius without stopping the selection itself.
Input validation directly stops externally supplied class or method names from selecting improper code via reflection.
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.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover unsafe reflection during code review or scanning.
Preventing execution of unauthorized code can block exploitation of unsafe reflection at runtime.
Secure SDLC practices directly avoid introducing externally controlled class selection via reflection.
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.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and design reviews that reduce unsafe reflection risks.
Application security requirements can explicitly prohibit or constrain reflection based on untrusted input.
Secure architecture principles discourage dynamic class loading from external data sources.
Secure coding standards directly forbid unsafe reflection and require whitelisting or static alternatives.
Security testing can detect and block unsafe reflection patterns before release.