Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-78

Allowed

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

8366 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-29HF-RM4X-XXPH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-23 18:24 – Updated: 2026-06-23 18:24

Summary

Mise's local credential_command executes untrusted config

Details

Summary

mise loads github.credential_command from local project config before any trust decision, then executes that value with sh -c when resolving a GitHub token. An attacker who can place a .mise.toml in a repository can execute arbitrary shell commands when the victim runs a GitHub-related mise command and no higher-priority GitHub token environment variable is set.

The current command-execution path is github.credential_command. I confirmed in Docker that the setting is exploitable on v2026.3.15 and v2026.3.17, while v2026.3.14 rejects it as an unknown field. This report does not depend on the separate trust-bypass issue because the sink is reached directly from [settings.github].

Details

The vulnerable load order is:

Settings::try_get() preloads settings from local config files.
parse_settings_file() returns settings_file.settings without checking whether the local file is trusted.
resolve_token() checks settings.github.credential_command after the token env vars and before file-based sources.
get_credential_command_token() executes the value with sh -c.

The main command-execution path is:

let result = std::process::Command::new("sh")
    .arg("-c")
    .arg(cmd)
    .arg("mise-credential-helper")
    .arg(host)
    .output()

If a local project file sets:

[settings.github]
credential_command = "echo credential_command_rce > /tmp/mise-proof.txt; echo ghp_fake_token"

then resolve_token() will reach get_credential_command_token() whenever higher-priority GitHub token environment variables are unset. credential_command is a documented custom credential source for mise, but it is also accepted from a local project .mise.toml, which lets an untrusted repository supply a shell command for mise to execute.

PoC

Test environment:

Docker
linux-arm64
mise v2026.3.17

Negative control:

export GITHUB_TOKEN=env_token
mise github token --unmask

Observed:

github.com: env_token (source: GITHUB_TOKEN)
/tmp/mise-proof.txt => missing

Primary exploit:

[settings.github]
credential_command = "echo credential_command_rce > /tmp/mise-proof.txt; echo ghp_fake_token"

Run:

unset GITHUB_TOKEN GITHUB_API_TOKEN MISE_GITHUB_TOKEN MISE_GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_TOKEN
mise github token --unmask

Observed:

github.com: ghp_fake_token (source: credential_command)

And the side effect file is created:

/tmp/mise-proof.txt => credential_command_rce

Related version check:

v2026.3.14: credential_command is rejected as an unknown field
v2026.3.15: the same PoC executes and returns source: credential_command

Impact

An attacker who can place a .mise.toml in a repository can execute arbitrary shell commands as the victim user when the victim runs a mise command that resolves a GitHub token from local settings.

Demonstrated impact:

arbitrary command execution as the victim user
no trust prompt
no need for [env], [hooks], tasks, or templates

Important limitation:

if a higher-priority GitHub token environment variable is already set, the credential_command path is not reached

Suggested Fix

Do not honor github.credential_command from non-global project config files.

For example, inside parse_settings_file():

pub fn parse_settings_file(path: &Path) -> Result<SettingsPartial> {
    let raw = file::read_to_string(path)?;
    let settings_file: SettingsFile = toml::from_str(&raw)?;
    let mut settings = settings_file.settings;

    if !config::is_global_config(path) {
        settings.github.credential_command = None;
    }

    Ok(settings)
}

Severity

6.3 (Medium)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "mise"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2026.3.15"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.6.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-55448"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-23T18:24:28Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\n`mise` loads `github.credential_command` from local project config before any trust decision, then executes that value with `sh -c` when resolving a GitHub token. An attacker who can place a `.mise.toml` in a repository can execute arbitrary shell commands when the victim runs a GitHub-related mise command and no higher-priority GitHub token environment variable is set.\n\nThe current command-execution path is `github.credential_command`. I confirmed in Docker that the setting is exploitable on `v2026.3.15` and `v2026.3.17`, while `v2026.3.14` rejects it as an unknown field. This report does not depend on the separate trust-bypass issue because the sink is reached directly from `[settings.github]`.\n\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerable load order is:\n\n1. [`Settings::try_get()`](https://github.com/jdx/mise/blob/37997e70cd2216d1a86726fba0c8c09c3986ad06/src/config/settings.rs#L254-L283) preloads settings from local config files.\n2. [`parse_settings_file()`](https://github.com/jdx/mise/blob/37997e70cd2216d1a86726fba0c8c09c3986ad06/src/config/settings.rs#L505-L510) returns `settings_file.settings` without checking whether the local file is trusted.\n3. [`resolve_token()`](https://github.com/jdx/mise/blob/37997e70cd2216d1a86726fba0c8c09c3986ad06/src/github.rs#L344-L390) checks `settings.github.credential_command` after the token env vars and before file-based sources.\n4. [`get_credential_command_token()`](https://github.com/jdx/mise/blob/37997e70cd2216d1a86726fba0c8c09c3986ad06/src/github.rs#L558-L599) executes the value with `sh -c`.\n\nThe main command-execution path is:\n\n```rust\nlet result = std::process::Command::new(\"sh\")\n    .arg(\"-c\")\n    .arg(cmd)\n    .arg(\"mise-credential-helper\")\n    .arg(host)\n    .output()\n```\n\nIf a local project file sets:\n\n```toml\n[settings.github]\ncredential_command = \"echo credential_command_rce \u003e /tmp/mise-proof.txt; echo ghp_fake_token\"\n```\n\nthen `resolve_token()` will reach `get_credential_command_token()` whenever higher-priority GitHub token environment variables are unset. `credential_command` is a documented custom credential source for mise, but it is also accepted from a local project `.mise.toml`, which lets an untrusted repository supply a shell command for mise to execute.\n\n### PoC\n\nTest environment:\n\n- Docker\n- `linux-arm64`\n- `mise v2026.3.17`\n\nNegative control:\n\n```bash\nexport GITHUB_TOKEN=env_token\nmise github token --unmask\n```\n\nObserved:\n\n```text\ngithub.com: env_token (source: GITHUB_TOKEN)\n/tmp/mise-proof.txt =\u003e missing\n```\n\nPrimary exploit:\n\n```toml\n[settings.github]\ncredential_command = \"echo credential_command_rce \u003e /tmp/mise-proof.txt; echo ghp_fake_token\"\n```\n\nRun:\n\n```bash\nunset GITHUB_TOKEN GITHUB_API_TOKEN MISE_GITHUB_TOKEN MISE_GITHUB_ENTERPRISE_TOKEN\nmise github token --unmask\n```\n\nObserved:\n\n```text\ngithub.com: ghp_fake_token (source: credential_command)\n```\n\nAnd the side effect file is created:\n\n```text\n/tmp/mise-proof.txt =\u003e credential_command_rce\n```\n\nRelated version check:\n\n- `v2026.3.14`: `credential_command` is rejected as an unknown field\n- `v2026.3.15`: the same PoC executes and returns `source: credential_command`\n\n### Impact\n\nAn attacker who can place a `.mise.toml` in a repository can execute arbitrary shell commands as the victim user when the victim runs a mise command that resolves a GitHub token from local settings.\n\nDemonstrated impact:\n\n- arbitrary command execution as the victim user\n- no trust prompt\n- no need for `[env]`, `[hooks]`, tasks, or templates\n\nImportant limitation:\n\n- if a higher-priority GitHub token environment variable is already set, the `credential_command` path is not reached\n\n### Suggested Fix\n\nDo not honor `github.credential_command` from non-global project config files.\n\nFor example, inside `parse_settings_file()`:\n\n```rust\npub fn parse_settings_file(path: \u0026Path) -\u003e Result\u003cSettingsPartial\u003e {\n    let raw = file::read_to_string(path)?;\n    let settings_file: SettingsFile = toml::from_str(\u0026raw)?;\n    let mut settings = settings_file.settings;\n\n    if !config::is_global_config(path) {\n        settings.github.credential_command = None;\n    }\n\n    Ok(settings)\n}\n```",
  "id": "GHSA-29hf-rm4x-xxph",
  "modified": "2026-06-23T18:24:28Z",
  "published": "2026-06-23T18:24:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jdx/mise/security/advisories/GHSA-29hf-rm4x-xxph"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jdx/mise"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Mise\u0027s local credential_command executes untrusted config"
}

GHSA-29QF-RP4C-J9R3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-25 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-26 19:00

Details

Four OS command injection vulnerabilities exist in the XCMD testWifiAP functionality of Abode Systems, Inc. iota All-In-One Security Kit 6.9X and 6.9Z. A XCMD can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of malicious commands to trigger these vulnerabilities.This vulnerability specifically focuses on the unsafe use of the WL_WPAPSK configuration value in the function located at offset 0x1c7d28 of firmware 6.9Z.

Severity

10.0 (Critical)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-33193"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Four OS command injection vulnerabilities exist in the XCMD testWifiAP functionality of Abode Systems, Inc. iota All-In-One Security Kit 6.9X and 6.9Z. A XCMD can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of malicious commands to trigger these vulnerabilities.This vulnerability specifically focuses on the unsafe use of the `WL_WPAPSK` configuration value in the function located at offset `0x1c7d28` of firmware 6.9Z.",
  "id": "GHSA-29qf-rp4c-j9r3",
  "modified": "2022-10-26T19:00:37Z",
  "published": "2022-10-25T19:00:27Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-33193"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2022-1559"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-29V9-X79C-6XJF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-13 21:31 – Updated: 2026-01-13 21:31

Details

Authenticated command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management interface of mobility conductors running AOS-8 operating system. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated malicious actor to execute arbitrary commands as a privileged user on the underlying operating system.

Severity

7.2 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-37170"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-13T20:16:04Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Authenticated command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management interface of mobility conductors running AOS-8 operating system. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated malicious actor to execute arbitrary commands as a privileged user on the underlying operating system.",
  "id": "GHSA-29v9-x79c-6xjf",
  "modified": "2026-01-13T21:31:44Z",
  "published": "2026-01-13T21:31:44Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-37170"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw04987en_us\u0026docLocale=en_US"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-29XR-V42J-R956

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-18 19:15 – Updated: 2026-04-24 20:56

Summary

thenify before 3.3.1 made use of unsafe calls to `eval`.

Details

Versions of thenify prior to 3.3.1 made use of unsafe calls to eval. Untrusted user input could thus lead to arbitrary code execution on the host. The patch in version 3.3.1 removes calls to eval.

Severity

9.8 (Critical)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "thenify"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.3.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.webjars.npm:thenify"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.3.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-7677"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-07-18T19:15:29Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-07-25T14:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Versions of thenify prior to 3.3.1 made use of unsafe calls to `eval`. Untrusted user input could thus lead to arbitrary code execution on the host. The patch in version 3.3.1 removes calls to `eval`.",
  "id": "GHSA-29xr-v42j-r956",
  "modified": "2026-04-24T20:56:15Z",
  "published": "2022-07-18T19:15:29Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-7677"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/thenables/thenify/issues/29"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/thenables/thenify/commit/0d94a24eb933bc835d568f3009f4d269c4c4c17a"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/thenables/thenify"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/thenables/thenify/blob/master/index.js%23L17"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/09/msg00039.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MTEUUTNIEBHGKUKKLNUZSV7IEP6IP3Q3"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UM6XJ73Q3NAM5KSGCOKJ2ZIA6GUWUJLK"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSNPM-572317"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-THENIFY-571690"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "thenify before 3.3.1 made use of unsafe calls to `eval`."
}

GHSA-2C27-GRR5-3W2G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:09 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:09

Details

Command Injection in Open PLC Webserver v3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via the "Hardware Layer Code Box" component on the "/hardware" page of the application.

Severity

8.8 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-31630"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78",
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-08-03T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Command Injection in Open PLC Webserver v3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via the \"Hardware Layer Code Box\" component on the \"/hardware\" page of the application.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c27-grr5-3w2g",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:09:52Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:09:52Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-31630"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/162563/OpenPLC-WebServer-3-Remote-Code-Execution.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l08DHB08Gow"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2C47-M757-32G6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-21 18:32 – Updated: 2025-05-27 19:00

Summary

Insufficient input sanitization in ejson2env

Details

Summary

The ejson2env tool has a vulnerability related to how it writes to stdout. Specifically, the tool is intended to write an export statement for environment variables and their values. However, due to inadequate output sanitization, there is a potential risk where variable names or values may include malicious content, resulting in additional unintended commands being output to stdout. If this output is improperly utilized in further command execution, it could lead to command injection vulnerabilities, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the host system.

Details

The vulnerability exists because environment variables are not properly sanitized during the decryption phase, which enables malicious keys or encrypted values to inject commands.

Impact

An attacker with control over .ejson files can inject commands in the environment where source $(ejson2env) or eval ejson2env are executed.

Mitigation

Update to a version of ejson2env that sanitizes the output during decryption or
Do not use ejson2env to decrypt untrusted user secrets or
Do not evaluate or execute the direct output from ejson2env without removing nonprintable characters.

Credit

Thanks to security researcher Demonia for reporting this issue.

Severity

6.6 (Medium)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/Shopify/ejson2env/v2"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.0.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "ejson2env"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.0.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 2.0.8"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/Shopify/ejson2env"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-48069"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-05-21T18:32:37Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-05-21T18:15:53Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\nThe `ejson2env` tool has a vulnerability related to how it writes to `stdout`. Specifically, the tool is intended to write an export statement for environment variables and their values. However, due to inadequate output sanitization, there is a potential risk where variable names or values may include malicious content, resulting in additional unintended commands being output to `stdout`. If this output is improperly utilized in further command execution, it could lead to command injection vulnerabilities, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the host system.\n\n### Details\nThe vulnerability exists because environment variables are not properly sanitized during the decryption phase, which enables malicious keys or encrypted values to inject commands.\n\n### Impact\nAn attacker with control over  `.ejson` files can inject commands in the environment where `source $(ejson2env)`  or `eval ejson2env` are executed.\n\n\n### Mitigation\n- Update to a version of `ejson2env` that sanitizes the output during decryption or\n- Do not use `ejson2env` to decrypt untrusted user secrets or\n- Do not evaluate or execute the direct output from `ejson2env` without removing nonprintable characters.\n\n### Credit\nThanks to security researcher [Demonia](https://hackerone.com/demonia?type=user) for reporting this issue.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c47-m757-32g6",
  "modified": "2025-05-27T19:00:06Z",
  "published": "2025-05-21T18:32:37Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Shopify/ejson2env/security/advisories/GHSA-2c47-m757-32g6"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48069"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Shopify/ejson2env/commit/592b3ceea967fee8b064e70983e8cec087b6d840"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/Shopify/ejson2env"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/ejson2env/CVE-2025-48069.yml"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Insufficient input sanitization in ejson2env "
}

GHSA-2C6M-6GQH-6QG3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-25 19:54 – Updated: 2022-10-25 19:54

Summary

Docker Command Escaping in the GitHub Actions Runner

Details

Impact

The actions runner invokes the docker cli directly in order to run job containers, service containers, or container actions. A bug in the logic for how the environment is encoded into these docker commands was discovered that allows an input to escape the environment variable and modify that docker command invocation directly. Jobs that use container actions, job containers, or service containers alongside untrusted user inputs in environment variables may be vulnerable.

Patches

The Actions Runner has been patched, both on github.com and hotfixes for GHES and GHAE customers. Please update to one of the following versions of the runner: - 2.296.2 - 2.293.1 - 2.289.4 - 2.285.2 - 2.283.4

GHES and GHAE customers may want to patch their instance in order to have their runners automatically upgrade to these new runner versions.

Workarounds

You may want to consider removing any container actions, job containers, or service containers from your jobs until you are able to upgrade your runner versions.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in the actions runner

Severity

8.8 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 2.296.1"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
        "name": "actions/runner"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.294.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.296.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
        "name": "actions/runner"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.290.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.293.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
        "name": "actions/runner"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.286.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.289.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
        "name": "actions/runner"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.284.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.285.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
        "name": "actions/runner"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.283.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-39321"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-25T19:54:27Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nThe actions runner invokes the docker cli directly in order to run job containers, service containers, or container actions. A bug in the logic for how the environment is encoded into these docker commands was discovered that allows an input to escape the environment variable and modify that docker command invocation directly. Jobs that use [container actions](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/creating-actions/creating-a-docker-container-action), [job containers](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-jobs/running-jobs-in-a-container), or [service containers](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-containerized-services/about-service-containers) alongside untrusted user inputs in environment variables may be vulnerable.\n\n### Patches\nThe Actions Runner has been patched, both on `github.com` and hotfixes for GHES and GHAE customers. Please update to one of the following versions of the runner:\n- 2.296.2\n- 2.293.1\n- 2.289.4\n- 2.285.2\n- 2.283.4\n\nGHES and GHAE customers may want to patch their instance in order to have their runners automatically upgrade to these new runner versions.\n\n### Workarounds\nYou may want to consider removing any container actions, job containers, or service containers from your jobs until you are able to upgrade your runner versions.\n\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [the actions runner](https://github.com/actions/runner)\n",
  "id": "GHSA-2c6m-6gqh-6qg3",
  "modified": "2022-10-25T19:54:27Z",
  "published": "2022-10-25T19:54:27Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/actions/runner/security/advisories/GHSA-2c6m-6gqh-6qg3"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-39321"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/actions/runner/pull/2107"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/actions/runner/pull/2108"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/actions/runner"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Docker Command Escaping in the GitHub Actions Runner"
}

GHSA-2C6Q-2F39-J65X

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:49 – Updated: 2023-01-30 18:30

Details

OS command injection vulnerability in drivers_syno_import_user.php in Synology Calendar before 2.3.1-0617 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via the crafted 'X-Real-IP' header.

Severity

9.8 (Critical)


                  
                    CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-11829"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-06-30T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "OS command injection vulnerability in drivers_syno_import_user.php in Synology Calendar before 2.3.1-0617 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via the crafted \u0027X-Real-IP\u0027 header.",
  "id": "GHSA-2c6q-2f39-j65x",
  "modified": "2023-01-30T18:30:19Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T16:49:04Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11829"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.synology.com/security/advisory/Synology_SA_19_12"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2C83-WFV3-Q25F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-09-07 23:07 – Updated: 2021-09-07 14:04

Summary

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') in ZMarkdown

Details

Impact

A Remote Command Execution vulnerability was found in the rebber module, which allowed execution of arbitrary commands. The reported problem came from CodeBlocks, which could be escaped to insert malicious LaTeX.

Anyone using rebber without sanitation of code content or a custom macro is impacted by this vulnerability. Here is an example of a Markdown content that will exploit the vulnerability:

```
\end{CodeBlock}

\immediate\write18{COMMAND > outputrce}
\input{outputrce}

\begin{CodeBlock}{text}
```

Will insert into the generated LaTeX the result of executing COMMAND on the system.

Patches

The vulnerability has been patched in version 5.2.1. If impacted, you should update to this version as soon as possible.

Workarounds

It is possible to mitigate the vulnerability without upgrading by using a custom code macro. Please make sure this custom macro escapes your closing LaTeX sequence. For the example above, use:

const escaped = content.replace(new RegExp('\\\\end\\s*{CodeBlock}', 'g'), '')

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, open an issue in ZMarkdown.

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "rebber"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "5.2.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2021-09-07T14:04:47Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nA Remote Command Execution vulnerability was found in the rebber module,\nwhich allowed execution of arbitrary commands. The reported problem came\nfrom CodeBlocks, which could be escaped to insert malicious LaTeX.\n\nAnyone using `rebber` without sanitation of code content or a custom\nmacro is impacted by this vulnerability. Here is an example of a Markdown\ncontent that will exploit the vulnerability:\n\n````markdown\n```\n\\end{CodeBlock}\n\n\\immediate\\write18{COMMAND \u003e outputrce}\n\\input{outputrce}\n\n\\begin{CodeBlock}{text}\n```\n````\n\nWill insert into the generated LaTeX the result of executing\n`COMMAND` on the system.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe vulnerability has been patched in version 5.2.1.\nIf impacted, you should update to this version as soon as possible.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIt is possible to mitigate the vulnerability without upgrading by using a\ncustom code macro. Please make sure this custom macro escapes your\nclosing LaTeX sequence. For the example above, use:\n\n```javascript\nconst escaped = content.replace(new RegExp(\u0027\\\\\\\\end\\\\s*{CodeBlock}\u0027, \u0027g\u0027), \u0027\u0027)\n```\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, open an issue in [ZMarkdown](https://github.com/zestedesavoir/zmarkdown/issues).",
  "id": "GHSA-2c83-wfv3-q25f",
  "modified": "2021-09-07T14:04:47Z",
  "published": "2021-09-07T23:07:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/zestedesavoir/zmarkdown/security/advisories/GHSA-2c83-wfv3-q25f"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/zestedesavoir/zmarkdown"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [],
  "summary": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) in ZMarkdown"
}

GHSA-2CCF-C5MV-5962

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:06 – Updated: 2022-05-17 05:06

Details

core/getLog.php on the Siemens Enterprise OpenScape Branch appliance and OpenScape Session Border Controller (SBC) before 2 R0.32.0, and 7 before 7 R1.7.0, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors.

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2013-4781"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2013-07-18T16:51:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "core/getLog.php on the Siemens Enterprise OpenScape Branch appliance and OpenScape Session Border Controller (SBC) before 2 R0.32.0, and 7 before 7 R1.7.0, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors.",
  "id": "GHSA-2ccf-c5mv-5962",
  "modified": "2022-05-17T05:06:05Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T05:06:05Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-4781"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.sec-consult.com/fxdata/seccons/prod/temedia/advisories_txt/20130614-0_Siemens_OpenScape_Branch_SBC_Multiple_Vulnerabilities_v10.txt"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/60555"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

Mitigation

Architecture and Design

If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.

Mitigation MIT-22

Architecture and Design Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Mitigation

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction

For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.

Mitigation MIT-15

Architecture and Design

For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Mitigation MIT-4.3

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.

Mitigation MIT-28

Implementation

Strategy: Output Encoding

While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).

Mitigation

Implementation

If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.

Mitigation MIT-27

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Parameterization

If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.

Mitigation MIT-5

Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

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.
When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.

Mitigation MIT-21

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion

When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.

Mitigation MIT-32

Operation

Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening

Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).

Mitigation MIT-32

Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Mitigation MIT-39

Implementation

Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.

Mitigation

Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.

Mitigation MIT-29

Operation

Strategy: Firewall

Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

Mitigation MIT-17

Architecture and Design Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

Mitigation MIT-16

Operation Implementation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection

An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.

CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters

An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.

CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers

An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.

CAPEC-6: Argument Injection

An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.

CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection

In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

← Back to the CWE list