CVE-2026-31230
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe Adversarial Robustness Toolbox (ART) thru 1.20.1 contains a command-line argument injection vulnerability in its Kubeflow component (robustness_evaluation_fgsm_pytorch.py). The script uses the unsafe eval() function to parse string values provided via the --clip_values and --input_shape command-line arguments. This allows an attacker to inject arbitrary Python code into these arguments, which will be executed when eval() is called. The vulnerability can be exploited remotely if an attacker can control these arguments (e.g., through pipeline configuration or automated scripts), leading to arbitrary code execution on the system running the ART evaluation.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe Adversarial Robustness Toolbox (ART) Kubeflow component uses the unsafe eval() function to parse command-line arguments --clip_values and --input_shape. An attacker who can control these arguments (e.g., through pipeline configuration or automated scripts) can inject arbitrary Python code that will be executed on the target system with the privileges of the running process.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the affected fileSearch for robustness_evaluation_fgsm_pytorch.py in your environment, typically found within ART (Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) installations used in Kubeflow pipelinesAffected if The file exists in your Kubeflow or ML workflow environment
-
Verify eval() usage for argument parsingOpen the file and search for eval() calls that parse command-line arguments, specifically looking for lines handling --clip_values and --input_shapeAffected if eval() is used to parse --clip_values or --input_shape arguments from the command line
-
Identify if running as part of KubeflowCheck if your ART-based robustness evaluation script runs as a Kubeflow pipeline component or is invoked within a Kubeflow container/podAffected if The vulnerable script runs in a Kubeflow context with user-accessible command-line arguments
-
Confirm external argument exposureReview how the script is invoked - check if --clip_values and --input_shape arguments can be supplied by users, external pipelines, or untrusted sourcesAffected if Users or external systems can supply --clip_values or --input_shape to the script
You are affected if the file robustness_evaluation_fgsm_pytorch.py exists in your environment and uses eval() to parse --clip_values or --input_shape arguments that can be supplied by users or external sources.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataReplace the unsafe eval() calls with safe parsing methods such as ast.literal_eval() for tuple/numeric values or implement strict input validation with allowlist-based type checking to prevent code injection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-31230 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-31230 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data