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.
8341 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-47WM-WMJ9-988C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-28 03:30 – Updated: 2025-01-14 06:32Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command vulnerability in NEC Corporation Aterm WG1800HP4, WG1200HS3, WG1900HP2, WG1200HP3, WG1800HP3, WG1200HS2, WG1900HP, WG1200HP2, W1200EX(-MS), WG1200HS, WG1200HP, WF300HP2, W300P, WF800HP, WR8165N, WG2200HP, WF1200HP2, WG1800HP2, WF1200HP, WG600HP, WG300HP, WF300HP, WG1800HP, WG1400HP, WR8175N, WR9300N, WR8750N, WR8160N, WR9500N, WR8600N, WR8370N, WR8170N, WR8700N, WR8300N, WR8150N, WR4100N, WR4500N, WR8100N, WR8500N, CR2500P, WR8400N, WR8200N, WR1200H, WR7870S, WR6670S, WR7850S, WR6650S, WR6600H, WR7800H, WM3400RN, WM3450RN, WM3500R, WM3600R, WM3800R, WR8166N, MR01LN and MR02LN all versions allows a attacker to execute an arbitrary OS command with the root privilege via the internet.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-28015"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-28T01:15:47Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command vulnerability in NEC Corporation Aterm WG1800HP4, WG1200HS3, WG1900HP2, WG1200HP3, WG1800HP3, WG1200HS2, WG1900HP, WG1200HP2, W1200EX(-MS), WG1200HS, WG1200HP, WF300HP2, W300P, WF800HP, WR8165N, WG2200HP, WF1200HP2, WG1800HP2, WF1200HP, WG600HP, WG300HP, WF300HP, WG1800HP, WG1400HP, WR8175N, WR9300N, WR8750N, WR8160N, WR9500N, WR8600N, WR8370N, WR8170N, WR8700N, WR8300N, WR8150N, WR4100N, WR4500N, WR8100N, WR8500N, CR2500P, WR8400N, WR8200N, WR1200H, WR7870S, WR6670S, WR7850S, WR6650S, WR6600H, WR7800H, WM3400RN, WM3450RN, WM3500R, WM3600R, WM3800R, WR8166N, MR01LN and MR02LN all versions allows a attacker to execute an arbitrary OS command with the root privilege via the internet.",
"id": "GHSA-47wm-wmj9-988c",
"modified": "2025-01-14T06:32:00Z",
"published": "2024-03-28T03:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-28015"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://https://jpn.nec.com/security-info/secinfo/nv24-001_en.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jpn.nec.com/security-info/secinfo/nv24-001_en.html"
}
],
"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-47WW-F64V-7564
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-24 06:30 – Updated: 2024-03-24 06:30A vulnerability was found in Tenda AC10U 15.03.06.48/15.03.06.49. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects the function formSetSambaConf of the file /goform/setsambacfg. The manipulation of the argument usbName leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier VDB-257777 was assigned to this vulnerability. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-2853"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-24T05:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in Tenda AC10U 15.03.06.48/15.03.06.49. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects the function formSetSambaConf of the file /goform/setsambacfg. The manipulation of the argument usbName leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier VDB-257777 was assigned to this vulnerability. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-47ww-f64v-7564",
"modified": "2024-03-24T06:30:45Z",
"published": "2024-03-24T06:30:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-2853"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/abcdefg-png/IoT-vulnerable/blob/main/Tenda/AC10U/v1.V15.03.06.48/more/formSetSambaConf.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.257777"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.257777"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-47XC-9RR2-Q7P4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-25 19:56 – Updated: 2025-04-09 19:59Description
In versions previous to 2.40.0, Azure CLI contains a vulnerability for potential code injection. Critical scenarios are where a hosting machine runs an Azure CLI command where parameter values have been provided by an external source.
For example: Application X is a web application with a feature that allows users to create Secrets in an Azure KeyVault. Instead of constructing API calls based on user input, Application X uses Azure CLI commands to create the secrets. Application X has input fields presented to the user and the Azure CLI command parameter values are filled based on the user input fields. This input, when formed correctly, could potentially be run as system commands. Below is an example of the resulting Azure CLI command run on the web app's hosting machine.
az keyvault secret set --vault-name SomeVault --name foobar --value "abc123|whoami"
The above command could potentially run the whoami command on the hosting machine.
Interactive, in-terminal use and automation/pipeline scenarios have not been identified as critical risk scenarios.
Code injection prerequisites
The vulnerability is only applicable when the Azure CLI command is run on a Windows machine and with any version of PowerShell andwhen the parameter value contains the & or | symbols. If any of these prerequisites are not met, this vulnerability is not applicable.
1. The command has to be run on Windows
The Azure CLI has an entry script that, when run on Windows, calls cmd.exe to then call Python. This leads into the next prerequisite.
2. The command has to be executed by PowerShell.
PowerShell has input parsing designs that strip out the quotation marks of input with the expectation that it will be taken as a string. When used in a PowerShell environment, the command is input like the above command. However, when it passes through PowerShell into cmd.exe, it looks like the following.
az keyvault secret set --vault-name SomeVault --name foobar --value abc123|whoami
This leads to the 3rd prerequisite as it won’t just try to run any parameter value as a command.
3. The parameter value has to contain a & or | symbols
In cmd.exe, the & and | symbols invoke command execution. When a string containing this symbols is passed directly to cmd.exe, quotes are kept and command execution is invoked. However, When a string is passed into PowerShell, the quotes are stripped and passed into cmd.exe making it open to execution.
So, in the keyvault example above, the abc123 portion of the value will be accepted correctly but the value after the | symbol will be interpreted as a command.
Impact
Code injection
As mentioned in the above scenario where the value is being provided by and outside source to run an Azure CLI command, system commands or even scripts could be run on a hosting machine.
Patches
Upgrade to Azure CLI 2.40.0 or greater.
As of Azure CLI 2.40.0, a new .ps1 entry script is used as the entry point to call Python rather than cmd.exe. This removes the opportunity for cmd.exe to interpret input as a command invocation. Using this approach has introduced new issues however that you can read about in the "More information" section.
Upgrade to 2.41.0 or greater and manually call the azps.ps1 entry script in identified critical scenarios.
In Azure CLI 2.41.0 we have reverted back to using the cmd.exe entry script as the default while keeping the azps.ps1 entry script for manual Azure CLI calls if users require it.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SDKs\Azure\CLI2\wbin\azps.ps1 keyvault secret set --vault-name SomeVault --name foobar --value "abc123|whoami"
More information
PowerShell Parsing with Azure CLI
PowerShell’s input parsing design has caused regressions and issues in Azure CLI’s behavior resulting in broken scripts and pipelines. Below are the known issues and links to GitHub issues. This should not be taken as a complete list since these are only the reported issues. Users should verify command effectiveness before use in production environments.
- PowerShell arrays can't be passed to Azure CLI
- Argument passthrough token (
--) doesn't work with Azure CLI in PowerShell - Stop parsing token (
--%) no longer works with Azure CLI in PowerShell - stdin passing is interrupted for Azure CLI in PowerShell
- Azure CLI returns 0 when failing in PowerShell
- Azure CLI can no longer be invoked by
Start-Process
To avoid these breaking changes, in Azure CLI 2.41.0 we have reverted back to using the cmd.exe entry script as the default while keeping the azps.ps1 entry script for manual Azure CLI calls if users require it.
🗒️ The .ps1 entry script is only required for similarly identified scenarios like the example above. Interactive use and automation scenarios have not been identified as high risk.
If the azps.ps1 script is needed, you can call it like this:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SDKs\Azure\CLI2\wbin\azps.ps1 vm create
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in Azure CLI GitHub repo * Email us at AzPyCLI@microsoft.com
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "azure-cli"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.40.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-39327"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-25T19:56:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Description\n\nIn versions previous to 2.40.0, Azure CLI contains a vulnerability for potential code injection. Critical scenarios are where a hosting machine runs an Azure CLI command where parameter values have been provided by an external source. \n\nFor example: Application X is a web application with a feature that allows users to create Secrets in an Azure KeyVault. Instead of constructing API calls based on user input, Application X uses Azure CLI commands to create the secrets. Application X has input fields presented to the user and the Azure CLI command parameter values are filled based on the user input fields. This input, when formed correctly, could potentially be run as system commands. Below is an example of the resulting Azure CLI command run on the web app\u0027s hosting machine. \n\n```bash\naz keyvault secret set --vault-name SomeVault --name foobar --value \"abc123|whoami\"\n```\n\nThe above command could potentially run the `whoami` command on the hosting machine.\n\nInteractive, in-terminal use and automation/pipeline scenarios have not been identified as critical risk scenarios.\n\n## Code injection prerequisites\n\nThe vulnerability is only applicable when the Azure CLI command is run on a Windows machine **_and_** with any version of PowerShell **_and_**when the parameter value contains the `\u0026` or `|` symbols. If any of these prerequisites are not met, this vulnerability is not applicable.\n\n### 1. The command has to be run on Windows\n\nThe Azure CLI has an entry script that, when run on Windows, calls cmd.exe to then call Python. This leads into the next prerequisite.\n\n### 2. The command has to be executed by PowerShell.\n\nPowerShell has input parsing designs that strip out the quotation marks of input with the expectation that it will be taken as a string. When used in a PowerShell environment, the command is input like the above command. However, when it passes through PowerShell into cmd.exe, it looks like the following. \n\n```powershell\naz keyvault secret set --vault-name SomeVault --name foobar --value abc123|whoami\n```\n\nThis leads to the 3rd prerequisite as it won\u2019t just try to run any parameter value as a command. \n\n### 3. The parameter value has to contain a `\u0026` or `|` symbols\n\nIn cmd.exe, the `\u0026` and `|` symbols invoke command execution. When a string containing this symbols is passed directly to cmd.exe, quotes are kept and command execution is invoked. However, When a string is passed into PowerShell, the quotes are stripped and passed into cmd.exe making it open to execution.\n\nSo, in the `keyvault` example above, the `abc123` portion of the value will be accepted correctly but the value after the `|` symbol will be interpreted as a command. \n\n# Impact\n\n## Code injection\n\nAs mentioned in the above scenario where the value is being provided by and outside source to run an Azure CLI command, system commands or even scripts could be run on a hosting machine. \n\n# Patches\n\nUpgrade to Azure CLI 2.40.0 or greater. \n\nAs of Azure CLI 2.40.0, a new .ps1 entry script is used as the entry point to call Python rather than cmd.exe. This removes the opportunity for cmd.exe to interpret input as a command invocation. Using this approach has introduced new issues however that you can read about in the \"More information\" section.\n\nUpgrade to 2.41.0 or greater and manually call the azps.ps1 entry script in identified critical scenarios.\n\nIn Azure CLI 2.41.0 we have [reverted back](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/pull/24015) to using the cmd.exe entry script as the default while keeping the azps.ps1 entry script for manual Azure CLI calls if users require it.\n\n```powershell\nC:\\Program Files (x86)\\Microsoft SDKs\\Azure\\CLI2\\wbin\\azps.ps1 keyvault secret set --vault-name SomeVault --name foobar --value \"abc123|whoami\"\n```\n\n## More information\n\n### PowerShell Parsing with Azure CLI\n\nPowerShell\u2019s input parsing design has caused regressions and issues in Azure CLI\u2019s behavior resulting in broken scripts and pipelines. Below are the known issues and links to GitHub issues. This should not be taken as a complete list since these are **_only the reported_** issues. Users should verify command effectiveness before use in production environments.\n\n1. [PowerShell arrays can\u0027t be passed to Azure CLI](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/issues/23797)\n2. [Argument passthrough token (`--`) doesn\u0027t work with Azure CLI in PowerShell](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/issues/24034)\n3. [Stop parsing token (`--%`) no longer works with Azure CLI in PowerShell](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/issues/24114)\n4. [stdin passing is interrupted for Azure CLI in PowerShell](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/issues/2388)\n5. [Azure CLI returns 0 when failing in PowerShell](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/issues/23880)\n6. [Azure CLI can no longer be invoked by `Start-Process`](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/pull/24015)\n\nTo avoid these breaking changes, in Azure CLI 2.41.0 we have [reverted back](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/pull/24015) to using the cmd.exe entry script as the default while keeping the azps.ps1 entry script for manual Azure CLI calls if users require it.\n\n\u003e \ud83d\uddd2\ufe0f The .ps1 entry script is only required for similarly identified scenarios like the example above. Interactive use and automation scenarios have not been identified as high risk.\n\nIf the azps.ps1 script is needed, you can call it like this: \n\n```powershell\nC:\\Program Files (x86)\\Microsoft SDKs\\Azure\\CLI2\\wbin\\azps.ps1 vm create\n```\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [Azure CLI GitHub repo](https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli)\n* Email us at [AzPyCLI@microsoft.com](mailto:AzPyCLI@microsoft.com)",
"id": "GHSA-47xc-9rr2-q7p4",
"modified": "2025-04-09T19:59:25Z",
"published": "2022-10-25T19:56:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/security/advisories/GHSA-47xc-9rr2-q7p4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-39327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/pull/23514"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/pull/24015"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/azure-cli/PYSEC-2022-43177.yaml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Improper Control of Generation of Code (\u0027Code Injection\u0027) in Azure CLI"
}
GHSA-483X-J2MH-6X95
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-07 00:30 – Updated: 2025-07-07 18:32A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in Comodo Internet Security Premium 12.3.4.8162. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file cis_update_x64.xml of the component Manifest File Handler. The manipulation of the argument binary/params leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-7097"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-06T23:15:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in Comodo Internet Security Premium 12.3.4.8162. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file cis_update_x64.xml of the component Manifest File Handler. The manipulation of the argument binary/params leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-483x-j2mh-6x95",
"modified": "2025-07-07T18:32:25Z",
"published": "2025-07-07T00:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-7097"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qnWarYsTSc5_sV6o8ULv0LBvGfKKXPxn/view"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qnWarYsTSc5_sV6o8ULv0LBvGfKKXPxn/view?usp=sharing"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.315011"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.315011"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.603714"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-4866-P686-25F3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:07 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:31DrayTek Vigor2960 1.3.1_Beta; Vigor3900 1.4.4_Beta; and Vigor300B 1.3.3_Beta, 1.4.2.1_Beta, and 1.4.4_Beta devices allow remote code execution as root (without authentication) via shell metacharacters to the cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi URI.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-8515"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-74",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-02-01T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "DrayTek Vigor2960 1.3.1_Beta; Vigor3900 1.4.4_Beta; and Vigor300B 1.3.3_Beta, 1.4.2.1_Beta, and 1.4.4_Beta devices allow remote code execution as root (without authentication) via shell metacharacters to the cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi URI.",
"id": "GHSA-4866-p686-25f3",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:31:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:07:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sku11army.blogspot.com/2020/01/draytek-unauthenticated-rce-in-draytek.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2020-8515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.draytek.com/about/security-advisory/vigor3900-/-vigor2960-/-vigor300b-router-web-management-page-vulnerability-%28cve-2020-8515%29"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.draytek.com/about/security-advisory/vigor3900-/-vigor2960-/-vigor300b-router-web-management-page-vulnerability-(cve-2020-8515)"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/156979/DrayTek-Vigor2960-Vigor3900-Vigor300B-Remote-Command-Execution.html"
}
],
"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-486J-328H-2HWW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-01 21:31 – Updated: 2025-10-01 21:31A weakness has been identified in D-Link DIR-816L 206b01. Affected by this issue is the function soapcgi_main of the file /soap.cgi. This manipulation of the argument service causes os command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9727"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-31T12:15:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A weakness has been identified in D-Link DIR-816L 206b01. Affected by this issue is the function soapcgi_main of the file /soap.cgi. This manipulation of the argument service causes os command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.",
"id": "GHSA-486j-328h-2hww",
"modified": "2025-10-01T21:31:19Z",
"published": "2025-10-01T21:31:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9727"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/scanleale/IOT_sec/blob/main/DIR-816L.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.322016"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.322016"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.639698"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dlink.com"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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-487W-PQCM-63HQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-01-13 18:22 – Updated: 2023-09-08 22:44There is a command injection vulnerability in all versions of package buns. The injection point is located in line 678 in index file lib/index.js in the exported function install(requestedModule).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "buns"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.1.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-7794"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-01-12T23:52:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-08T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "There is a command injection vulnerability in all versions of package buns. The injection point is located in line 678 in index file lib/index.js in the exported function install(requestedModule).",
"id": "GHSA-487w-pqcm-63hq",
"modified": "2023-09-08T22:44:01Z",
"published": "2021-01-13T18:22:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-7794"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-BUNS-1050389"
}
],
"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": "Command injection in buns"
}
GHSA-489R-V3H6-C72Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-05 18:33 – Updated: 2026-06-15 18:31The traceroute diagnostic handler in /bin/httpd_clientside for ALTICE LABS / SFR France GR140DG and GR140IG fibre CPE/Router/Gateway, inserts unsanitized user input into a system() call, allowing authenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands as root via crafted destAddr parameters using shell command substitution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-31196"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-05T16:16:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The traceroute diagnostic handler in /bin/httpd_clientside for ALTICE LABS / SFR France GR140DG and GR140IG fibre CPE/Router/Gateway, inserts unsanitized user input into a system() call, allowing authenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands as root via crafted destAddr parameters using shell command substitution.",
"id": "GHSA-489r-v3h6-c72q",
"modified": "2026-06-15T18:31:14Z",
"published": "2026-05-05T18:33:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31196"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.alticelabs.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sfr.fr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://xerod.ai/advisories/XEROD-2026-0002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://altice.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://gr140dg.com"
}
],
"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-48F7-VHP5-98FR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:00 – Updated: 2022-10-14 12:00Linear eMerge 50P/5000P devices allow Authenticated Command Injection with root Code Execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-7269"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-02T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Linear eMerge 50P/5000P devices allow Authenticated Command Injection with root Code Execution.",
"id": "GHSA-48f7-vhp5-98fr",
"modified": "2022-10-14T12:00:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T22:00:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7269"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://applied-risk.com/labs/advisories"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.applied-risk.com/resources/ar-2019-006"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-20-184-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/155250/Linear-eMerge50P-5000P-4.6.07-Remote-Code-Execution.html"
}
],
"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-48JP-J5H5-MPGV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-30 18:31 – Updated: 2023-12-07 03:30In TOTOLINK X6000R V9.4.0cu.852_B20230719, the shttpd file, sub_4119A0 function obtains fields from the front-end through Uci_ Set_ The Str function when passed to the CsteSystem function creates a command execution vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-48810"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-30T18:15:08Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In TOTOLINK X6000R V9.4.0cu.852_B20230719, the shttpd file, sub_4119A0 function obtains fields from the front-end through Uci_ Set_ The Str function when passed to the CsteSystem function creates a command execution vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-48jp-j5h5-mpgv",
"modified": "2023-12-07T03:30:31Z",
"published": "2023-11-30T18:31:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-48810"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.notion.so/X6000R-sub_4119A0-7-d5387bf8d16846c2b4f19b15a808aa4c?pvs=4"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.