CVE Intelligence
Medium Injection exploit reference

CVE-2026-108957 — TinyLLaVA TinyLLaVA_Factory TinyLlavaConfig configuration_tinyllava.py _load_text_config code injection

A security flaw has been discovered in TinyLLaVA TinyLLaVA_Factory up to 1abc6ac5e76a68d0fd087a071b56da968e69ca9b. The impacted element is the function _load_text_config of the file tinyllava/model/configuration_tinyllava.py of the component TinyLlavaConfig. Performing a manipulation of the argument llm_model_name_or_path results in code injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product follows a rolling release approach for continuous delivery, so version details for affected or updated releases are not provided. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Published Oct 13, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: VulDB

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+2
  • Technical severity (medium)+3
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.24%
ahead of 14% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
TinyLLaVA
TinyLLaVA Factory
CVSS base
6.3
Medium · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (TinyLLaVA TinyLLaVA Factory).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
TinyLLaVA TinyLLaVA Factory version 1abc6ac5e76a68d0fd087a071b56da968e69ca9b Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.3 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — VulDB via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
2.1 CVSS 4.0 Low — — cna@vuldb.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 3.4 cna@vuldb.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
6.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — VulDB via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
6.3 CVSS 3.0 Medium — — VulDB via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
7.5 CVSS 2.0 High 10.0 6.4 cna@vuldb.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.5 CVSS 2.0 High — — VulDB via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L (score shown at the top: cna@vuldb.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-74 · Injection

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.24%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Affected products added · tinyllava/tinyllava factory
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 6.3
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Oct 13, 2026 · VulDB

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× References added · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

9 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

TinyLLaVA
every CVE for this vendor
Injection
same class
CWE-74
other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-108957 is "TinyLLaVA TinyLLaVA_Factory TinyLlavaConfig configuration_tinyllava.py _load_text_config code injection", rated Medium. It affects TinyLLaVA Factory (TinyLLaVA); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.24% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.