CVE-2026-25141

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25141
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html

Orval generates type-safe JS clients (TypeScript) from any valid OpenAPI v3 or Swagger v2 specification. Versions starting with 7.19.0 and prior to 7.21.0 and 8.2.0 have an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-23947. While the jsStringEscape function properly handles single quotes (), double quotes () and so on, it is still possible to achieve code injection using only a limited set of characters that are currently not escaped. The vulnerability lies in the fact that the application can be forced to execute arbitrary JavaScript using characters such as !+. By using a technique known as JSFuck, an attacker can bypass the current sanitization logic and run arbitrary code without needing any alphanumeric characters or quotes. Version 7.21.0 and 8.2.0 contain an updated fix.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

Potential Mitigations

Run your code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Weakness

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2026-25141

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Weakness

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References