CWE-78
AllowedImproper 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-2F8J-56Q3-MHMR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:40 – Updated: 2022-05-14 01:40Aterm HC100RC Ver1.0.1 and earlier allows attacker with administrator rights to execute arbitrary OS commands via import.cgi encKey parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-0638"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-09T23:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Aterm HC100RC Ver1.0.1 and earlier allows attacker with administrator rights to execute arbitrary OS commands via import.cgi encKey parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-2f8j-56q3-mhmr",
"modified": "2022-05-14T01:40:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:40:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-0638"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jpn.nec.com/security-info/secinfo/nv18-011.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN84825660/index.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2F8V-537V-W2FV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:24 – Updated: 2023-01-24 21:30This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CentOS Web Panel cwp-e17.0.9.8.923. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within ajax_admin_apis.php. When parsing the line parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9739.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15613"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-07-28T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CentOS Web Panel cwp-e17.0.9.8.923. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within ajax_admin_apis.php. When parsing the line parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9739.",
"id": "GHSA-2f8v-537v-w2fv",
"modified": "2023-01-24T21:30:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:24:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15613"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-20-760"
}
],
"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-2F96-G7MH-G2HX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 19:43 – Updated: 2026-07-21 19:43Command injection via long-option prefix abbreviation bypassing check_unsafe_options (incomplete fix of CVE-2026-42215 / GHSA-rpm5-65cw-6hj4)
Component: gitpython-developers/GitPython (PyPI: GitPython)
Affected: all versions carrying the 3.1.47 blocklist fix, through current main (verified at commit 20c5e275, 3.1.50-42)
CWE: CWE-184 (Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs) → CWE-78 (OS Command Injection)
Severity: inherits the parent CVE-2026-42215 surface; estimated High, ~8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) — final scoring deferred to maintainer/CNA, mirroring the parent.
Reporter: hackkim
Summary
The 3.1.47 fix for CVE-2026-42215 blocks dangerous git options (--upload-pack, --config, -c, -u for clone; --upload-pack for fetch/pull; --receive-pack, --exec for push) so callers cannot reach command-executing options unless they pass allow_unsafe_options=True.
The fix canonicalizes an option name along one axis (underscore→hyphen via dashify) and checks it against an exact-match dict. It does not account for git's unambiguous long-option prefix abbreviation. Git accepts any unambiguous prefix of a long option (--upload-p, --upload-pa, --upload-pac all resolve to --upload-pack). So a kwarg key like upload_p canonicalizes to upload-p, misses the blocklist dict, and is emitted to git as --upload-p=<value> → executed as --upload-pack=<value> → command injection, in the default allow_unsafe_options=False configuration.
The asymmetry (root cause)
# git/cmd.py (commit 20c5e275), lines 948-974
@classmethod
def _canonicalize_option_name(cls, option):
option_name = option.lstrip("-").split("=", 1)[0]
option_tokens = option_name.split(None, 1)
if not option_tokens:
return ""
return dashify(option_tokens[0]) # only transform: "_" -> "-"
@classmethod
def check_unsafe_options(cls, options, unsafe_options):
canonical_unsafe_options = {cls._canonicalize_option_name(o): o for o in unsafe_options}
for option in options:
unsafe_option = canonical_unsafe_options.get(cls._canonicalize_option_name(option))
if unsafe_option is not None:
raise UnsafeOptionError(...)
The guard normalizes only _→- and does exact dict membership. Git's CLI parser accepts a broader grammar (prefix abbreviation) than the guard models, so abbreviated keys slip through and reach git as the blocked option.
Affected code (commit 20c5e275)
| Location | Role |
|---|---|
git/cmd.py:948-960 _canonicalize_option_name |
canonicalizer — no prefix expansion |
git/cmd.py:963-974 check_unsafe_options |
exact-match dict lookup (the incomplete guard) |
git/cmd.py:1511 transform_kwarg |
emits --<dashify(name)>=<value> to the CLI |
git/repo/base.py:1411,1413 |
clone call sites |
git/remote.py:1074,1128,1201 |
fetch / pull / push call sites |
Bypass keys (verified)
| kwarg key | git resolves to | path | weaponizable |
|---|---|---|---|
upload_p, upload_pac |
--upload-pack |
clone / fetch / pull | Yes — direct RCE |
receive_p |
--receive-pack |
push | Yes — direct RCE |
exe |
--exec |
push | Yes — direct RCE |
conf, confi |
--config |
clone | bypasses option blocklist; RCE needs an additional config vector (see note) |
Minimal PoC
Self-contained, no network egress (a local bare repo acts as the "remote"). Tested on current main (git 2.50.1):
import os, stat, tempfile
from git import Repo
work = tempfile.mkdtemp()
marker = os.path.join(work, "RCE_MARKER")
# fake "upload-pack" program that proves arbitrary command execution
prog = os.path.join(work, "evil.sh")
with open(prog, "w") as f:
f.write(f"#!/bin/sh\ntouch {marker}\nexit 1\n") # exit 1 so git aborts after our code ran
os.chmod(prog, os.stat(prog).st_mode | stat.S_IEXEC)
bare = os.path.join(work, "remote.git")
Repo.init(bare, bare=True)
# attacker-controlled kwarg KEY 'upload_p' -> --upload-p=<prog> -> git runs <prog>
try:
Repo.clone_from(bare, os.path.join(work, "out"), upload_p=prog)
except Exception:
pass # git aborts with GitCommandError AFTER the payload executed
print("RCE marker created:", os.path.exists(marker)) # True -> command injection confirmed
Equivalent at the shell: git clone --upload-p=/tmp/evil.sh src out runs evil.sh.
Confirmed behavior:
- upload_pack (exact) → blocked; upload_p (abbrev) → passes guard, reaches git, executes. The fix works for the form it models but not the abbreviated form.
- allow_unsafe_options=True opt-out behaves as documented (out of scope).
Honest scope note
Like the parent CVE, exploitation requires a host application that flows attacker-controlled kwarg keys into a GitPython clone/fetch/pull/push. Where the host passes only fixed/validated keys, this is not reachable — the vulnerability is in the library's documented defense-in-depth control (allow_unsafe_options=False), which this variant defeats.
On the --config family: conf bypasses the option blocklist, but weaponizing --config protocol.ext.allow=always via an ext:: URL is independently blocked by GitPython's protocol allowlist (allow_unsafe_protocols=False). The directly weaponizable family is upload-pack / receive-pack / exec. Reported transparently — not claiming Critical.
Suggested remediation (any one)
- Prefix-aware matching: reject any option whose canonical name is an unambiguous prefix of a blocked option (≈
startswithon the blocked canonical name, afterdashify). - Disable abbreviation at the sink: pass
--end-of-optionsor invoke git in a way that disables long-option abbreviation. - Allowlist option names on security-sensitive subcommands instead of a blocklist.
Remediation should also cover the -c/--config family abbreviations, even though the ext:: route is currently gated by the protocol allowlist.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.1.50"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "GitPython"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.51"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-184",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T19:43:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Command injection via long-option prefix abbreviation bypassing `check_unsafe_options` (incomplete fix of CVE-2026-42215 / GHSA-rpm5-65cw-6hj4)\n\n**Component:** gitpython-developers/GitPython (PyPI: GitPython)\n**Affected:** all versions carrying the 3.1.47 blocklist fix, through current `main` (verified at commit `20c5e275`, `3.1.50-42`)\n**CWE:** CWE-184 (Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs) \u2192 CWE-78 (OS Command Injection)\n**Severity:** inherits the parent CVE-2026-42215 surface; estimated High, ~8.8 (`AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H`) \u2014 final scoring deferred to maintainer/CNA, mirroring the parent.\n**Reporter:** hackkim\n\n### Summary\n\nThe 3.1.47 fix for CVE-2026-42215 blocks dangerous git options (`--upload-pack`, `--config`, `-c`, `-u` for clone; `--upload-pack` for fetch/pull; `--receive-pack`, `--exec` for push) so callers cannot reach command-executing options unless they pass `allow_unsafe_options=True`.\n\nThe fix canonicalizes an option name along **one** axis (underscore\u2192hyphen via `dashify`) and checks it against an **exact-match** dict. It does not account for git\u0027s unambiguous long-option prefix abbreviation. Git accepts any unambiguous prefix of a long option (`--upload-p`, `--upload-pa`, `--upload-pac` all resolve to `--upload-pack`). So a kwarg key like `upload_p` canonicalizes to `upload-p`, misses the blocklist dict, and is emitted to git as `--upload-p=\u003cvalue\u003e` \u2192 executed as `--upload-pack=\u003cvalue\u003e` \u2192 command injection, in the default `allow_unsafe_options=False` configuration.\n\n### The asymmetry (root cause)\n\n```python\n# git/cmd.py (commit 20c5e275), lines 948-974\n@classmethod\ndef _canonicalize_option_name(cls, option):\n option_name = option.lstrip(\"-\").split(\"=\", 1)[0]\n option_tokens = option_name.split(None, 1)\n if not option_tokens:\n return \"\"\n return dashify(option_tokens[0]) # only transform: \"_\" -\u003e \"-\"\n\n@classmethod\ndef check_unsafe_options(cls, options, unsafe_options):\n canonical_unsafe_options = {cls._canonicalize_option_name(o): o for o in unsafe_options}\n for option in options:\n unsafe_option = canonical_unsafe_options.get(cls._canonicalize_option_name(option))\n if unsafe_option is not None:\n raise UnsafeOptionError(...)\n```\n\nThe guard normalizes only `_`\u2192`-` and does exact dict membership. Git\u0027s CLI parser accepts a broader grammar (prefix abbreviation) than the guard models, so abbreviated keys slip through and reach git as the blocked option.\n\n### Affected code (commit `20c5e275`)\n\n| Location | Role |\n|---|---|\n| `git/cmd.py:948-960` `_canonicalize_option_name` | canonicalizer \u2014 no prefix expansion |\n| `git/cmd.py:963-974` `check_unsafe_options` | exact-match dict lookup (the incomplete guard) |\n| `git/cmd.py:1511` `transform_kwarg` | emits `--\u003cdashify(name)\u003e=\u003cvalue\u003e` to the CLI |\n| `git/repo/base.py:1411,1413` | clone call sites |\n| `git/remote.py:1074,1128,1201` | fetch / pull / push call sites |\n\n### Bypass keys (verified)\n\n| kwarg key | git resolves to | path | weaponizable |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `upload_p`, `upload_pac` | `--upload-pack` | clone / fetch / pull | Yes \u2014 direct RCE |\n| `receive_p` | `--receive-pack` | push | Yes \u2014 direct RCE |\n| `exe` | `--exec` | push | Yes \u2014 direct RCE |\n| `conf`, `confi` | `--config` | clone | bypasses option blocklist; RCE needs an additional config vector (see note) |\n\n### Minimal PoC\n\nSelf-contained, no network egress (a local bare repo acts as the \"remote\"). Tested on current `main` (git 2.50.1):\n\n```python\nimport os, stat, tempfile\nfrom git import Repo\n\nwork = tempfile.mkdtemp()\nmarker = os.path.join(work, \"RCE_MARKER\")\n\n# fake \"upload-pack\" program that proves arbitrary command execution\nprog = os.path.join(work, \"evil.sh\")\nwith open(prog, \"w\") as f:\n f.write(f\"#!/bin/sh\\ntouch {marker}\\nexit 1\\n\") # exit 1 so git aborts after our code ran\nos.chmod(prog, os.stat(prog).st_mode | stat.S_IEXEC)\n\nbare = os.path.join(work, \"remote.git\")\nRepo.init(bare, bare=True)\n\n# attacker-controlled kwarg KEY \u0027upload_p\u0027 -\u003e --upload-p=\u003cprog\u003e -\u003e git runs \u003cprog\u003e\ntry:\n Repo.clone_from(bare, os.path.join(work, \"out\"), upload_p=prog)\nexcept Exception:\n pass # git aborts with GitCommandError AFTER the payload executed\n\nprint(\"RCE marker created:\", os.path.exists(marker)) # True -\u003e command injection confirmed\n```\n\nEquivalent at the shell: `git clone --upload-p=/tmp/evil.sh src out` runs `evil.sh`.\n\nConfirmed behavior:\n- `upload_pack` (exact) \u2192 blocked; `upload_p` (abbrev) \u2192 passes guard, reaches git, executes. The fix works for the form it models but not the abbreviated form.\n- `allow_unsafe_options=True` opt-out behaves as documented (out of scope).\n\n### Honest scope note\n\nLike the parent CVE, exploitation requires a host application that flows attacker-controlled kwarg **keys** into a GitPython clone/fetch/pull/push. Where the host passes only fixed/validated keys, this is not reachable \u2014 the vulnerability is in the library\u0027s documented defense-in-depth control (`allow_unsafe_options=False`), which this variant defeats.\n\nOn the `--config` family: `conf` bypasses the option blocklist, but weaponizing `--config protocol.ext.allow=always` via an `ext::` URL is independently blocked by GitPython\u0027s protocol allowlist (`allow_unsafe_protocols=False`). The directly weaponizable family is `upload-pack` / `receive-pack` / `exec`. Reported transparently \u2014 not claiming Critical.\n\n### Suggested remediation (any one)\n\n1. **Prefix-aware matching:** reject any option whose canonical name is an unambiguous prefix of a blocked option (\u2248 `startswith` on the blocked canonical name, after `dashify`).\n2. **Disable abbreviation at the sink:** pass `--end-of-options` or invoke git in a way that disables long-option abbreviation.\n3. **Allowlist** option names on security-sensitive subcommands instead of a blocklist.\n\nRemediation should also cover the `-c`/`--config` family abbreviations, even though the `ext::` route is currently gated by the protocol allowlist.",
"id": "GHSA-2f96-g7mh-g2hx",
"modified": "2026-07-21T19:43:43Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T19:43:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/security/advisories/GHSA-2f96-g7mh-g2hx"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/pull/2161"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/commit/56806080c1348749b07daa4a2024ce47b3cad285"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/releases/tag/3.1.51"
}
],
"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": "GitPython: Command Injection via git long-option prefix abbreviation bypass of CVE-2026-42215 blocklist"
}
GHSA-2FCC-CGW7-6RRW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-13 00:32 – Updated: 2026-02-13 21:31grub-btrfs through 2026-01-31 (on Arch Linux and derivative distributions) allows initramfs OS command injection because it does not sanitize the $root parameter to resolve_device().
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25828"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-12T22:16:05Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "grub-btrfs through 2026-01-31 (on Arch Linux and derivative distributions) allows initramfs OS command injection because it does not sanitize the $root parameter to resolve_device().",
"id": "GHSA-2fcc-cgw7-6rrw",
"modified": "2026-02-13T21:31:35Z",
"published": "2026-02-13T00:32:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25828"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/grub-btrfs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Antynea/grub-btrfs/tree/master"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cardosource/CVE-2026-25828"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2FF6-837J-HG5X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-14 12:35 – Updated: 2025-11-06 16:57Magento versions 2.4.7-p1, 2.4.6-p6, 2.4.5-p8, 2.4.4-p9 and earlier are affected by an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability that could lead in arbitrary code execution by an admin attacker. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction and scope is changed.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/project-community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.7-beta1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.7-p2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.6-p1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.6-p7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.5-p1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.5-p9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.4-p1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.4-p10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.7"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.6"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.5"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"versions": [
"2.4.4"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39402"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-11-06T16:57:44Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-14T12:15:25Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Magento versions 2.4.7-p1, 2.4.6-p6, 2.4.5-p8, 2.4.4-p9 and earlier are affected by an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability that could lead in arbitrary code execution by an admin attacker. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction and scope is changed.",
"id": "GHSA-2ff6-837j-hg5x",
"modified": "2025-11-06T16:57:44Z",
"published": "2024-08-14T12:35:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39402"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb24-61.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Magento OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability"
}
GHSA-2FFF-928R-P76X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-09 09:31 – Updated: 2025-01-09 09:31Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') vulnerability allows OS Command Injection as root
This issue affects Iocharger firmware for AC model chargers before version 24120701.
Likelihood: Moderate – The attacker will first need to find the name of the script, and needs a (low privilege) account to gain access to the script, or convince a user with such access to execute a request to it.
Impact: Critical – The attacker has full control over the charging station as the root user, and can arbitrarily add, modify and deletefiles and services.
CVSS clarification: Any network interface serving the web ui is vulnerable (AV:N) and there are not additional security measures to circumvent (AC:L), nor does the attack require and existing preconditions (AT:N). The attack is authenticated, but the level of authentication does not matter (PR:L), nor is any user interaction required (UI:N). The attack leads to a full compromised (VC:H/VI:H/VA:H), and compromised devices can be used to pivot into networks that should potentially not be accessible (SC:L/SI:L/SA:H). Becuase this is an EV charger handing significant power, there is a potential safety impact (S:P). This attack can be automated (AU:Y).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43655"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-09T08:15:28Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability allows OS Command Injection as root\n\nThis issue affects Iocharger firmware for AC model chargers before version 24120701.\n\nLikelihood: Moderate \u2013 The attacker will first need to find the name of the script, and needs a (low privilege) account to gain access to the script, or convince a user with such access to execute a request to it.\n\nImpact: Critical \u2013 The attacker has full control over the charging station as the root user, and can arbitrarily add, modify and deletefiles and services.\n\nCVSS clarification: Any network interface serving the web ui is vulnerable (AV:N) and there are not additional security measures to circumvent (AC:L), nor does the attack require and existing preconditions (AT:N). The attack is authenticated, but the level of authentication does not matter (PR:L), nor is any user interaction required (UI:N). The attack leads to a full compromised (VC:H/VI:H/VA:H), and compromised devices can be used to pivot into networks that should potentially not be accessible (SC:L/SI:L/SA:H). Becuase this is an EV charger handing significant power, there is a potential safety impact (S:P). This attack can be automated (AU:Y).",
"id": "GHSA-2fff-928r-p76x",
"modified": "2025-01-09T09:31:42Z",
"published": "2025-01-09T09:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43655"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/CVE-2024-43655"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/DIVD-2024-00035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://iocharger.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:P/AU:Y/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-2FGQ-7J6H-9RM4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-03 00:40 – Updated: 2026-03-30 13:19Summary
system.run allowed SHELLOPTS + PS4 environment injection to trigger command substitution during bash -lc xtrace expansion before the allowlisted command body executed.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Affected:
<= 2026.2.21-2(includes latest published npm version at triage time) - Patched (planned next release):
2026.2.22
Impact
In allowlist mode, an attacker who can invoke system.run with request-scoped env could execute additional shell commands outside the intended allowlisted command body.
Root Cause
Host exec env sanitization blocked startup-file vectors (BASH_ENV, ENV, etc.) but did not block SHELLOPTS/PS4. For shell wrappers (bash|sh|zsh ... -c/-lc), request env overrides were passed through and bash evaluated PS4 under xtrace, enabling command substitution.
Fix
- Block
SHELLOPTSandPS4in host exec env sanitizers (Node + macOS). - For shell wrappers (
bash|sh|zsh ... -c/-lc), reduce request-scoped env overrides to an explicit allowlist (TERM,LANG,LC_*,COLORTERM,NO_COLOR,FORCE_COLOR). - Add regression tests for TS and macOS paths.
Fix Commit(s)
e80c803fa887f9699ad87a9e906ab5c1ff85bd9a
Release Process Note
patched_versions is pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.22). Once npm release 2026.2.22 is published, advisory publication is a final state action only.
Severity Rationale
This advisory is rated medium because exploitation requires a caller that can already invoke system.run with request-scoped env.
Under OpenClaw's documented trust model (SECURITY.md), authenticated Gateway callers are treated as trusted operators, and adversarial multi-operator / prompt-injection scenarios are out of scope.
The bug remains a real allowlist-intent bypass, but it does not cross a separate trust boundary in the documented deployment assumptions.
OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.2.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32003"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-15",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-03T00:40:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-19T22:16:32Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n`system.run` allowed `SHELLOPTS` + `PS4` environment injection to trigger command substitution during `bash -lc` xtrace expansion before the allowlisted command body executed.\n\n### Affected Packages / Versions\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected: `\u003c= 2026.2.21-2` (includes latest published npm version at triage time)\n- Patched (planned next release): `2026.2.22`\n\n### Impact\nIn `allowlist` mode, an attacker who can invoke `system.run` with request-scoped `env` could execute additional shell commands outside the intended allowlisted command body.\n\n### Root Cause\nHost exec env sanitization blocked startup-file vectors (`BASH_ENV`, `ENV`, etc.) but did not block `SHELLOPTS`/`PS4`. For shell wrappers (`bash|sh|zsh ... -c/-lc`), request env overrides were passed through and `bash` evaluated `PS4` under `xtrace`, enabling command substitution.\n\n### Fix\n- Block `SHELLOPTS` and `PS4` in host exec env sanitizers (Node + macOS).\n- For shell wrappers (`bash|sh|zsh ... -c/-lc`), reduce request-scoped env overrides to an explicit allowlist (`TERM`, `LANG`, `LC_*`, `COLORTERM`, `NO_COLOR`, `FORCE_COLOR`).\n- Add regression tests for TS and macOS paths.\n\n### Fix Commit(s)\n- `e80c803fa887f9699ad87a9e906ab5c1ff85bd9a`\n\n### Release Process Note\n`patched_versions` is pre-set to the planned next release (`2026.2.22`). Once npm release `2026.2.22` is published, advisory publication is a final state action only.\n\n### Severity Rationale\nThis advisory is rated **medium** because exploitation requires a caller that can already invoke `system.run` with request-scoped `env`.\n\nUnder OpenClaw\u0027s documented trust model (`SECURITY.md`), authenticated Gateway callers are treated as trusted operators, and adversarial multi-operator / prompt-injection scenarios are out of scope.\n\nThe bug remains a real allowlist-intent bypass, but it does not cross a separate trust boundary in the documented deployment assumptions.\n\nOpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-2fgq-7j6h-9rm4",
"modified": "2026-03-30T13:19:17Z",
"published": "2026-03-03T00:40:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-2fgq-7j6h-9rm4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32003"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/e80c803fa887f9699ad87a9e906ab5c1ff85bd9a"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-remote-code-execution-via-shellopts-ps4-environment-injection-in-system-run"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw has system.run shell-wrapper env injection via SHELLOPTS/PS4 can bypass allowlist intent (RCE)"
}
GHSA-2FHR-94VX-GJWJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-29 09:31 – Updated: 2024-04-29 09:31A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in MailCleaner up to 2023.03.14. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component Email Handler. The manipulation leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-262307.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-3191"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-29T07:15:07Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in MailCleaner up to 2023.03.14. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component Email Handler. The manipulation leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-262307.",
"id": "GHSA-2fhr-94vx-gjwj",
"modified": "2024-04-29T09:31:52Z",
"published": "2024-04-29T09:31:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3191"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MailCleaner/MailCleaner/pull/601"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://modzero.com/en/advisories/mz-24-01-mailcleaner"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://modzero.com/static/MZ-24-01_modzero_MailCleaner.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.262307"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.262307"
}
],
"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-2FHV-6V4J-H4QX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-08 03:30 – Updated: 2026-02-08 03:30A vulnerability was identified in XixianLiang HarmonyOS-mcp-server 0.1.0. This vulnerability affects the function input_text. The manipulation of the argument text leads to os command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-2131"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-08T03:15:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was identified in XixianLiang HarmonyOS-mcp-server 0.1.0. This vulnerability affects the function input_text. The manipulation of the argument text leads to os command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.",
"id": "GHSA-2fhv-6v4j-h4qx",
"modified": "2026-02-08T03:30:27Z",
"published": "2026-02-08T03:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-2131"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/scanleale/MCP_sec/blob/main/HarmonyOS-mcp-server%20RCE%20vulnerability.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.344766"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.344766"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.747209"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-2FPJ-H75C-C5VR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-11 06:31 – Updated: 2026-05-11 06:31A weakness has been identified in Tenda AC6 15.03.06.23. Affected by this vulnerability is the function formWifiApScan of the file /goform/WifiApScan of the component httpd. Executing a manipulation of the argument wl2g.public.country/wl5g.public.country can lead to os command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8264"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-11T04:16:17Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A weakness has been identified in Tenda AC6 15.03.06.23. Affected by this vulnerability is the function formWifiApScan of the file /goform/WifiApScan of the component httpd. Executing a manipulation of the argument wl2g.public.country/wl5g.public.country can lead to os command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-2fpj-h75c-c5vr",
"modified": "2026-05-11T06:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-05-11T06:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8264"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dxz0069/WAVLINK-WN530H4-Command-Injection-in-set_add_routing/blob/main/Tenda%20AC6V2%20formWifiApScan%20Command%20Injection%20via%20country%20parameter.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/810075"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/362561"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/362561/cti"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenda.com.cn"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation MIT-22
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Strategy: Environment 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-39
- 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
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
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
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
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.