CVE-2026-54074
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 · uneditedTina is a headless content management system. @tinacms/cli versions prior to 2.4.3 contain a Remote Code Execution vulnerability in the Forestry-to-Tina migration command. The internal helper addVariablesToCode unquotes any value matching the marker "__TINA_INTERNAL__:::(.*?):::" inside the stringified collection JSON. User-supplied label and name fields from .forestry/**/*.yml are placed into that JSON without any sanitisation. An attacker who controls a Forestry-style project can therefore inject arbitrary JavaScript into the generated tina/templates.{ts,js} file. The injected code is written at module top level, so it executes the moment the developer runs tinacms dev or tinacms build, with the developer's privileges. This issue has been fixed in version 2.4.3.
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 @tinacms/cli versions before 2.4.3 contain an RCE vulnerability in the Forestry-to-Tina migration command. The internal helper addVariablesToCode unquotes values containing the marker '__TINA_INTERNAL__:::' inside stringified JSON. Since label and name fields from .forestry/**/*.yml files are placed into this JSON without sanitization, an attacker controlling a Forestry project can inject arbitrary JavaScript into generated tina/templates.{ts,js} files. This code executes immediately when developers run 'tinacms dev' or 'tinacms build' with the developer's privileges.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Check installed @tinacms/cli versionRun 'npm list @tinacms/cli' or 'pnpm list @tinacms/cli' to see the installed version, or check package.json dependenciesAffected if Version is below 2.4.3 (e.g., 2.4.2, 2.4.1, 2.3.x, etc.)
-
Verify Forestry project structure existsLook for a .forestry directory in the project root and inspect any .yml files within it (e.g., .forestry/settings.yml, .forestry/front_matter.yaml)Affected if A .forestry directory with YAML configuration files is present, indicating a Forestry project was imported or is being migrated
-
Check for generated Tina migration filesLook for tina/templates.ts or tina/templates.js files in the project directoryAffected if These generated template files exist, indicating the Forestry-to-Tina migration command was run
-
Inspect generated template files for injection markersOpen tina/templates.ts or tina/templates.js and search for the string '__TINA_INTERNAL__:::' within the file contentAffected if The marker '__TINA_INTERNAL__:::' appears anywhere in the generated template files, indicating unprocessed injection payload
-
Check for suspicious JavaScript in generated templatesReview tina/templates.ts or tina/templates.js for any unexpected function calls, eval() usage, or code that was not intentionally added during migrationAffected if The generated files contain arbitrary JavaScript code that was not expected from the Forestry configuration, especially code that would execute on 'tinacms dev' or 'tinacms build'
You are affected if @tinacms/cli version is below 2.4.3 AND you have run a Forestry-to-Tina migration, resulting in generated tina/templates files containing the '__TINA_INTERNAL__:::' marker or unexpected JavaScript code.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade @tinacms/cli to version 2.4.3 or later to remediate. Additionally, audit any previously generated tina/templates files and rebuild them with the patched version to remove any injected code.
@tinacms/cli version 2.4.3
- Check your current @tinacms/cli version by running: npm list @tinacms/cli or yarn list @tinacms/cli
- Upgrade @tinacms/cli to version 2.4.3 or later using: npm install @tinacms/cli@^2.4.3 or yarn add @tinacms/cli@^2.4.3
- Verify the upgrade was successful by running: npm list @tinacms/cli
- If you have a package-lock.json or yarn.lock file, commit the updated dependencies
- After upgrading, test your Forestry-to-Tina migration to confirm the vulnerability is patched
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 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-2026-54074 — 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-2026-54074 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