CVE-2026-48962

IO::Compress versions before 2.220 for Perl can execute arbitrary code in File::GlobMapper via an attacker-controlled output glob.

_parseOutputGlob() wraps the caller-supplied output glob string in double quotes and stores it in the parser state; _getFiles() then runs the stored expression through eval STRING. A literal double quote in the output glob closes the dquote wrapper, and the characters that follow are evaluated as Perl.

Arbitrary Perl in the output glob executes at the calling processs privilege.

Weakness

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. “eval”).

Affected Software

Name	Vendor	Start Version	End Version
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.212-512.el10_2.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Support	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.212-512.el10_0.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.061-2.el7_9.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	RedHat	perl:5.32-8100020260616084412.651ee29f	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.081-2.el8_10	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.081-1.el8_4.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Extended Update Support Long-Life Add-On	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.081-1.el8_4.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.081-1.el8_6.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support Long-Life Add-On	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.081-1.el8_6.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Telecommunications Update Service	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.081-1.el8_8.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Update Services for SAP Solutions	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.081-1.el8_8.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.102-4.el9_8.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Update Services for SAP Solutions	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.102-4.el9_2.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Update Services for SAP Solutions	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.102-4.el9_4.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update Support	RedHat	perl-IO-Compress-0:2.102-4.el9_6.1	*
Libio-compress-perl	Ubuntu	questing	*
Perl	Ubuntu	questing	*

Potential Mitigations

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.
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application’s current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
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].

https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/35.html

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48962
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/95.html

Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2026-48962

Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References