Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-8914

Published
05 June 2026
Modified
17 June 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:H/UI:N/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 0.0054 44th percentile
Risk Priority 28 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-2026-8914 is a high-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability in Teltonika Networks RUTOS (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 44th 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 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

In Teltonika Networks RUTOS devices, running versions 7.22 through 7.23.2 and TSWOS devices running versions 1.09 through 1.09.1, due to unsafe calls to an eval function in rpc-profile, a vulnerability exists where a lower privileged user could perform command injection…

more

as the root user.

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.
T1059.001 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.
T1059.007 JavaScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-29511Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-45579Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-68271Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-80351Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-4318Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-73231Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-61955Shared CWE-95
CVE-2026-73602Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-40943Shared CWE-95
CVE-2025-43466Shared CWE-95

Affected Assets

Teltonika Networks
RUTOS
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)
  • 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 partial 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.

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.

finds

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

References