Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-92937 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 AC-6 (Least Privilege) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-81587
Vulnerability Data
vm2 3.11.6 is vulnerable to a sandbox escape leading to remote code execution in the host Node.js process. The fix for GHSA-m283-3h24-438v is incomplete: the bridge gate at lib/bridge.js:1624 identity-checks only the direct call target when deciding whether to rebuild/sanitise…
more
a rejected host Promise value. Registering the rejection handler through Function.prototype.call or .apply indirection (e.g., p.then.call(p, undefined, cb)) makes the intercepted target host Function.prototype.call, so the sanitiser never runs and the raw host error reaches sandbox code with its own properties intact. If an embedder exposes a host-realm Promise to the sandbox (an async host function bridged via the sandbox option, or a NodeVM external module's async method) and that Promise rejects with an Error carrying a non-primitive own property referencing a host object (for example err.detail = process), untrusted code in the sandbox obtains a fully functional proxy to that host object and can execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the host process (e.g., e.detail.mainModule.require('child_process').execSync(...)). The direct p.then(undefined, cb), bind, and Reflect.apply forms are correctly sanitised. Fixed in vm2 3.11.7.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
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's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.