CVE-2026-57149: plone.app.portlets Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via TALES Injection

Should you act?

Critical, preconditions apply

Severe if exploited, but exploitation needs conditions that may not apply to you. This signal is computed from CISA KEV, EPSS and CVSS data; it is not an editorial verdict.

• No confirmed exploitation. It is not in CISA’s KEV catalog and CISA’s SSVC assessment records no known exploitation. That can change quickly after a public write-up; re-check if you are affected.
• EPSS 0.6%, percentile 50: FIRST’s model estimates a 0.6% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, higher than 50% of all scored CVEs (low). EPSS is a probability, not a verdict.
• Needs an account (low (any account)). Exposure depends on who can log in.
• Only applies if your dependency tree includes plone.app.portlets (PyPI) >= 7.0.0, <= 7.0.1, fixed in 7.0.2; plone.app.portlets (PyPI) >= 6.0.0, <= 6.0.3, fixed in 6.0.4; plone.app.portlets (PyPI) >= 5.0.0, <= 5.0.7, fixed in 5.0.8. Check your lockfile, including transitive dependencies.

What it is

plone.app.portlets.portlets provides a Plone-specific user interface for plone.portlets, as well as a standard set of portlets that ship with Plone. Starting in version 5.0.0 and prior to versions 5.0.8, 6.0.4, and 7.0.2, the Classic portlet (plone.app.portlets.portlets.classic) used its user-supplied template/macro fields to build a TALES path expression that was then evaluated by the TAL path() helper. Because the value was interpreted as a full TALES expression, a user able to add or edit a Classic portlet could supply a crafted value that escapes simple path traversal and is evaluated as arbitrary code. This is exploitable by any authenticated user who can configure a Classic portlet - which, with the default role map, includes regular users on their personal dashboard. The result is code execution in the context of the Plone process, i.e. a privilege escalation across the trust boundary between an authenticated web user and the server-side process. The problem has been patched in plone.app.portlets 5.0.8, 6.0.4, and 7.0.2. Some workarounds are available. Restrict who can manage portlets: remove the plone.app.portlets.ManageOwnPortlets permission from untrusted roles, and limit Manage portlets to trusted administrators (usually this is already restricted to the Manager and Site Administrator roles). Where the Classic portlet is not needed, unregister it so it cannot be added. This would need to be done by editing a portlets.xml in your own code. One may also effectively disable showing the classic portlet by customising its template. In the Zope Management Interface go to the portalviewcustomizations tool, locate the classic.pt template and click it. Click the Customize button. Remove all text and replace it with The classic portlet was disabled. . (This is not a recommended way of customizing a template, but in this case it is quite effective.)

From the GitHub advisory

Impact The Classic portlet (plone.app.portlets.portlets.classic) used its user-supplied template/macro fields to build a TALES path expression that was then evaluated by the TAL path() helper. Because the value was interpreted as a full TALES expression, a user able to add or edit a Classic portlet could supply a crafted value that escapes simple path traversal and is evaluated as arbitrary code.

This is exploitable by any authenticated user who can configure a Classic portlet - which, with the default role map, includes regular users on their personal dashboard. The result is code execution in the context of the Plone process, i.e. a privilege escalation across the trust boundary between an authenticated web user and the server-side process.

Patches The problem has been patched in plone.app.portlets

For Plone 6.2, upgrade to plone.app.portlets 7.0.2. For Plone 6.1, upgrade to plone.app.portlets 6.0.4. For Plone 6.0, upgrade to plone.app.portlets 5.0.8.

Workarounds If upgrading is not immediately possible:

Weakness type: CWE-95.

Product: plone.app.portlets (PyPI) · Assigned by: GitHub_M · Published: 2026-09-22

Affected and fixed versions

Severity scores

• Attack vector: network (remotely reachable)
• Attack complexity: low
• Privileges required: low (any account)
• User interaction: none
• Scope: changed (can affect other components)

CVSS measures how bad a flaw is if exploited, not how likely exploitation is. Read it next to the exploitation data below.

Exploitation and urgency

• CISA KEV: not listed (no confirmed in-the-wild exploitation known to CISA).
• CISA SSVC assessment: exploitation none, automatable no, technical impact total.
• FIRST EPSS (model of 2026-10-21): 0.64% probability of exploitation activity in the next 30 days; percentile 50.

Timeline

• 2026-09-22 — CVE record last updated
• 2026-09-22 — CVE record published by GitHub_M
• 2026-09-23 — GitHub-reviewed advisory GHSA-rr49-f9g6-c9r5 published (critical)

Sources and references

Original sources first. Version and fix details should always be confirmed against the vendor or project advisory.

Vulnerability records

1. GitHub Advisory GHSA-rr49-f9g6-c9r5 github.com
2. CVE.org record CVE-2026-57149 cve.org
3. NVD entry CVE-2026-57149 nvd.nist.gov

Other references from the CVE record and advisory

1. github.com github.com
2. github.com github.com
3. github.com github.com
4. github.com github.com
5. github.com github.com
6. github.com github.com
7. github.com github.com

Critical PyPI advisories · Today’s Security Digest