Raw vector
CVSS: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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-89200 is a high-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 8th 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 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-98398
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM CROSSBOW (All versions < V6.0). Affected devices do not properly validate or sanitize input in the Name and Value fields for custom file labels. This could allow an authenticated attacker with administrative privileges…
more
to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the underlying database.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
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.
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.
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.
created from the owner's anchor; an owner grade is a row and does not wait for an instrument (Mythos 2026-09-29T15:58Z).