CVE-2026-93710
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2026-93710 is a high-severity Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception (CWE-460) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 32th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-84256
Vulnerability Data
Dancer2 versions from 2.0.0 before 2.2.0 for Perl dispatch a route that a dying hook refused when the exception handler halts the response in compile_hooks. A hook that dies fires core.app.hook_exception, then calls cleanup unless the failing hook is the…
more
exception handler. A handler that halts does not stop that cleanup, which discards the request, response and session the dispatcher has yet to read, so the refused route runs. The handler has to halt the response object by calling its halt method or setting is_halted: the halt keyword unwinds through with_return before cleanup runs. A check in a before hook is not enforced: the caller gets the refusal, while the route body runs and its writes land.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requires application of security engineering principles (e.g., fail-safe, complete mediation) during design that would eliminate improper exception cleanup.
Requires the system to fail to a known state on indicated failures, directly forcing proper state cleanup instead of leaving inconsistent state after an exception.
Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures on failures, which structurally enforces cleanup actions that the weakness omits.
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 enforce proper exception handling and resource cleanup.
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 SDLC mandates exception-handling and cleanup practices that reduce improper state after thrown exceptions.
Application security requirements can specify robust exception handling and resource-release rules.
Secure architecture principles include designing for safe failure and guaranteed cleanup on exceptions.
Secure coding standards directly require proper resource release and state restoration after exceptions.
Security testing can detect missing cleanup paths, thereby mitigating the weakness before deployment.