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.
8265 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7X9H-V86G-F4F5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:03 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:43Blink XT2 Sync Module firmware prior to 2.13.11 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the device due to improperly sanitized input when retrieving internal network configuration data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-3989"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-12-11T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Blink XT2 Sync Module firmware prior to 2.13.11 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the device due to improperly sanitized input when retrieving internal network configuration data.",
"id": "GHSA-7x9h-v86g-f4f5",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:43:06Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:03:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-3989"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2019-51"
}
],
"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-7X9J-WF2G-2H5X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-26 18:31 – Updated: 2025-06-26 18:31A vulnerability was found in TOTOLINK CA300-PoE 6.2c.884. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function setUpgradeUboot of the file upgrade.so. The manipulation of the argument FileName leads to os command injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-6620"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-25T18:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in TOTOLINK CA300-PoE 6.2c.884. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function setUpgradeUboot of the file upgrade.so. The manipulation of the argument FileName leads to os command injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-7x9j-wf2g-2h5x",
"modified": "2025-06-26T18:31:25Z",
"published": "2025-06-26T18:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-6620"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/totolink4/vuln_46/46.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/totolink4/vuln_46/46.md#poc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.313838"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.313838"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.602265"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.totolink.net"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-7XCW-QXC4-V8F9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-08 15:30 – Updated: 2025-11-04 21:30Multiple OS command injection vulnerabilities exist in the decompression functionality of GTKWave 3.3.115. A specially crafted wave file can lead to arbitrary command execution. A victim would need to open a malicious file to trigger these vulnerabilities.This vulnerability concerns legacy decompression in vcd_main.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-35960"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-08T15:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple OS command injection vulnerabilities exist in the decompression functionality of GTKWave 3.3.115. A specially crafted wave file can lead to arbitrary command execution. A victim would need to open a malicious file to trigger these vulnerabilities.This vulnerability concerns legacy decompression in `vcd_main`.",
"id": "GHSA-7xcw-qxc4-v8f9",
"modified": "2025-11-04T21:30:56Z",
"published": "2024-01-08T15:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-35960"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/04/msg00007.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2023-1786"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2023-1786"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7XH3-MHG9-JCW8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-16 19:07 – Updated: 2026-06-16 19:07Summary
Deno's node:child_process implementation provided an escapeShellArg() helper used when callers passed shell: true to spawn / spawnSync / exec and friends. On Windows, the helper failed to quote arguments that contained cmd.exe metacharacters such as &, |, <, >, ^, !, (, ), and did not neutralize % (which cmd.exe expands even inside double-quoted strings). An attacker who controlled any portion of an argument passed to such a call could inject arbitrary additional commands into the spawned cmd.exe invocation.
This was the Windows counterpart to CVE-2026-27190, which fixed the same class of bug in the Unix branch of escapeShellArg.
Details
On Windows, child_process with shell: true ran the command via cmd.exe /d /s /c "<command line>". Deno assembled that command line by joining the program name and each argument through escapeShellArg().
The vulnerable check was:
// If no special characters, return as-is
if (!/[\s"\\]/.test(arg)) {
return arg;
}
The regex covered only whitespace, double-quote, and backslash. Any argument containing cmd.exe-significant characters but none of those three was returned unquoted and therefore interpreted by the shell. The most straightforward exploit chained commands with &:
import { spawnSync } from "node:child_process";
spawnSync("echo", ["test&calc.exe"], { shell: true, encoding: "utf-8" });
The reporter confirmed this launched calc.exe on Windows 11 with Deno 2.7.5. The same shape worked for |, <, >, ^, !, (, and ).
A secondary defect existed even when arguments were quoted: cmd.exe expands %FOO% environment-variable references inside double-quoted strings. Without either doubling % or rejecting it, an argument like "%USERPROFILE%" leaked environment data into the command line.
Proof of concept
From the report, run on Windows with Deno < 2.7.10:
import { spawnSync } from "node:child_process";
const maliciousInput = "test&calc.exe";
const result = spawnSync("echo", [maliciousInput], {
shell: true,
encoding: "utf-8",
});
console.log(result);
Observed: calc.exe launched as a side effect of the echo call.
Impact
Any Deno program on Windows that called child_process.spawn / spawnSync / exec (or any shell helper that funneled through escapeShellArg) with shell: true and incorporated untrusted input into an argument was exposed to arbitrary command execution in the context of the Deno process. The CVSS vector treated this as network-reachable / high-complexity because the typical exposure path was a Deno service accepting external input and forwarding it to a shelled-out subprocess.
Not affected:
- Calls without
shell: true(the default), which executed the program directly viaCreateProcesswithoutcmd.exeinterpretation. - Unix platforms, which used the single-quote branch of
escapeShellArgand were already fixed under CVE-2026-27190. - Callers that built command strings themselves and passed them as a single string with
shell: true— those were the caller's responsibility and were never sanitized by Deno.
Workarounds
Users on unpatched versions could mitigate by:
- Avoiding
shell: trueinnode:child_processcalls on Windows. - Building the argv directly and invoking the program without a shell.
- Filtering or rejecting any externally-supplied argument values that contained
cmd.exemetacharacters (& | < > ^ ! ( ) %) before passing them tospawn/spawnSync/exec.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "deno"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.7.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-49402"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-16T19:07:44Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nDeno\u0027s `node:child_process` implementation provided an `escapeShellArg()` helper used when callers passed `shell: true` to `spawn` / `spawnSync` / `exec` and friends. On Windows, the helper failed to quote arguments that contained `cmd.exe` metacharacters such as `\u0026`, `|`, `\u003c`, `\u003e`, `^`, `!`, `(`, `)`, and did not neutralize `%` (which `cmd.exe` expands even inside double-quoted strings). An attacker who controlled any portion of an argument passed to such a call could inject arbitrary additional commands into the spawned `cmd.exe` invocation.\n\nThis was the Windows counterpart to CVE-2026-27190, which fixed the same class of bug in the Unix branch of `escapeShellArg`.\n\n## Details\n\nOn Windows, `child_process` with `shell: true` ran the command via `cmd.exe /d /s /c \"\u003ccommand line\u003e\"`. Deno assembled that command line by joining the program name and each argument through `escapeShellArg()`.\n\nThe vulnerable check was:\n\n```ts\n// If no special characters, return as-is\nif (!/[\\s\"\\\\]/.test(arg)) {\n return arg;\n}\n```\n\nThe regex covered only whitespace, double-quote, and backslash. Any argument containing `cmd.exe`-significant characters but none of those three was returned unquoted and therefore interpreted by the shell. The most straightforward exploit chained commands with `\u0026`:\n\n```js\nimport { spawnSync } from \"node:child_process\";\n\nspawnSync(\"echo\", [\"test\u0026calc.exe\"], { shell: true, encoding: \"utf-8\" });\n```\n\nThe reporter confirmed this launched `calc.exe` on Windows 11 with Deno 2.7.5. The same shape worked for `|`, `\u003c`, `\u003e`, `^`, `!`, `(`, and `)`.\n\nA secondary defect existed even when arguments were quoted: `cmd.exe` expands `%FOO%` environment-variable references inside double-quoted strings. Without either doubling `%` or rejecting it, an argument like `\"%USERPROFILE%\"` leaked environment data into the command line.\n\n## Proof of concept\n\nFrom the report, run on Windows with Deno `\u003c 2.7.10`:\n\n```js\nimport { spawnSync } from \"node:child_process\";\n\nconst maliciousInput = \"test\u0026calc.exe\";\nconst result = spawnSync(\"echo\", [maliciousInput], {\n shell: true,\n encoding: \"utf-8\",\n});\nconsole.log(result);\n```\n\nObserved: `calc.exe` launched as a side effect of the `echo` call.\n\n## Impact\n\nAny Deno program on Windows that called `child_process.spawn` / `spawnSync` / `exec` (or any shell helper that funneled through `escapeShellArg`) with `shell: true` and incorporated untrusted input into an argument was exposed to arbitrary command execution in the context of the Deno process. The CVSS vector treated this as network-reachable / high-complexity because the typical exposure path was a Deno service accepting external input and forwarding it to a shelled-out subprocess.\n\nNot affected:\n\n- Calls without `shell: true` (the default), which executed the program directly via `CreateProcess` without `cmd.exe` interpretation.\n- Unix platforms, which used the single-quote branch of `escapeShellArg` and were already fixed under CVE-2026-27190.\n- Callers that built command strings themselves and passed them as a single string with `shell: true` \u2014 those were the caller\u0027s responsibility and were never sanitized by Deno.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nUsers on unpatched versions could mitigate by:\n\n- Avoiding `shell: true` in `node:child_process` calls on Windows.\n- Building the argv directly and invoking the program without a shell.\n- Filtering or rejecting any externally-supplied argument values that contained `cmd.exe` metacharacters (`\u0026 | \u003c \u003e ^ ! ( ) %`) before passing them to `spawn` / `spawnSync` / `exec`.",
"id": "GHSA-7xh3-mhg9-jcw8",
"modified": "2026-06-16T19:07:44Z",
"published": "2026-06-16T19:07:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/denoland/deno/security/advisories/GHSA-7xh3-mhg9-jcw8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/denoland/deno"
}
],
"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": "Deno: Command Injection via spawnSync \u0026 spawn on Windows"
}
GHSA-7XHV-MPJW-422F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-03 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-15 19:45Google-it is a Node.js package which allows its users to send search queries to Google and receive the results in a JSON format. When using the 'Open in browser' option in versions up to 1.6.2, google-it will unsafely concat the result's link retrieved from google to a shell command, potentially exposing the server to RCE.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "google-it"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.6.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-34083"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-74",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-03T22:23:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-02T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Google-it is a Node.js package which allows its users to send search queries to Google and receive the results in a JSON format. When using the \u0027Open in browser\u0027 option in versions up to 1.6.2, google-it will unsafely concat the result\u0027s link retrieved from google to a shell command, potentially exposing the server to RCE.",
"id": "GHSA-7xhv-mpjw-422f",
"modified": "2022-06-15T19:45:17Z",
"published": "2022-06-03T00:00:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34083"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisory.checkmarx.net/advisory/CX-2021-4777"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/PatNeedham/google-it"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PatNeedham/google-it/blob/v1.6.2/lib/googleIt.js#L59"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PatNeedham/google-it/blob/v1.6.2/src/googleIt.js#L34"
}
],
"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": "Command injection in google-it"
}
GHSA-7XJP-88F4-R966
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:13 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:13An issue was discovered in Pulse Secure Pulse Connect Secure (PCS) through 2020-04-06. The applet in tncc.jar, executed on macOS, Linux, and Solaris clients when a Host Checker policy is enforced, allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to perform OS command injection attacks (against a client) via shell metacharacters to the doCustomRemediateInstructions method, because Runtime.getRuntime().exec() is used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-11581"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-06T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Pulse Secure Pulse Connect Secure (PCS) through 2020-04-06. The applet in tncc.jar, executed on macOS, Linux, and Solaris clients when a Host Checker policy is enforced, allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to perform OS command injection attacks (against a client) via shell metacharacters to the doCustomRemediateInstructions method, because Runtime.getRuntime().exec() is used.",
"id": "GHSA-7xjp-88f4-r966",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:13:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:13:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-11581"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.lsd.cat/g/pulse-host-checker-rce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44426"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7XJV-WF6R-872R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-09 21:31 – Updated: 2026-01-09 21:31Processing specially crafted workspace folder names could allow for arbitrary command injection in the Kiro GitLab Merge-Request helper in Kiro IDE before version 0.6.18 when opening maliciously crafted workspaces.
To mitigate, users should update to version 0.6.18.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-0830"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-09T21:16:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Processing specially crafted workspace folder names could allow for arbitrary command injection in the Kiro GitLab Merge-Request helper in Kiro IDE before version 0.6.18 when opening maliciously crafted workspaces.\n\nTo mitigate, users should update to version 0.6.18.",
"id": "GHSA-7xjv-wf6r-872r",
"modified": "2026-01-09T21:31:35Z",
"published": "2026-01-09T21:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0830"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://aws.amazon.com/security/security-bulletins/2026-001-AWS"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kiro.dev/changelog/spec-correctness-and-cli"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-7XRH-W83G-7MFH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-07 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-14 00:00Multiple improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command vulnerabilities (CWE-78) in the Web GUI of FortiWAN before 4.5.9 may allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying system's shell via specifically crafted HTTP requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-24009"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-06T10:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command vulnerabilities (CWE-78) in the Web GUI of FortiWAN before 4.5.9 may allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying system\u0027s shell via specifically crafted HTTP requests.",
"id": "GHSA-7xrh-w83g-7mfh",
"modified": "2022-04-14T00:00:30Z",
"published": "2022-04-07T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24009"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-21-060"
}
],
"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-7XRM-QQ9Q-MPHG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:59 – Updated: 2024-03-21 03:33** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in SageMath Sage Cell Server through 2019-10-05. Python Code Injection can occur in the context of an internet facing web application. Malicious actors can execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system, as demonstrated by an import('os').popen('whoami').read() line. NOTE: the vendor's position is that the product is "vulnerable by design" and the current behavior will be retained.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-17526"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-18T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in SageMath Sage Cell Server through 2019-10-05. Python Code Injection can occur in the context of an internet facing web application. Malicious actors can execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system, as demonstrated by an __import__(\u0027os\u0027).popen(\u0027whoami\u0027).read() line. NOTE: the vendor\u0027s position is that the product is \"vulnerable by design\" and the current behavior will be retained.",
"id": "GHSA-7xrm-qq9q-mphg",
"modified": "2024-03-21T03:33:41Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:59:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-17526"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/barrett092/0380a1c34c014e29b827d1f408381525"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sagemath/sagecell/commits/master"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sethsec.blogspot.com/2016/11/exploiting-python-code-injection-in-web.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-8226-6JJ5-9JVR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-29 21:31 – Updated: 2025-01-29 21:31mySCADA myPRO does not properly neutralize POST requests sent to a specific port with email information. This vulnerability could be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the affected system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-20061"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-29T20:15:35Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "mySCADA myPRO does not properly neutralize POST requests sent to a specific port with email information. This vulnerability could be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the affected system.",
"id": "GHSA-8226-6jj5-9jvr",
"modified": "2025-01-29T21:31:25Z",
"published": "2025-01-29T21:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-20061"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-25-023-01"
}
],
"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: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"
}
]
}
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.