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.
8251 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-8P92-C9M5-RRQ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-10 06:30 – Updated: 2026-02-10 06:30The VAPIX API mediaclip.cgi that did not have a sufficient input validation allowing for a possible remote code execution. This flaw can only be exploited after authenticating with an operator- or administrator- privileged service account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-11142"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-10T06:15:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The VAPIX API mediaclip.cgi that did not have a sufficient input validation allowing for a possible remote code execution. This flaw can only be exploited after authenticating with an operator- or administrator- privileged service account.",
"id": "GHSA-8p92-c9m5-rrq9",
"modified": "2026-02-10T06:30:39Z",
"published": "2026-02-10T06:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.axis.com/dam/public/18/0e/90/cve-2025-11142pdf-en-US-519291.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8PHW-63G4-Q6PQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:18 – Updated: 2022-06-03 00:00A vulnerability in Trend Micro InterScan Web Security Virtual Appliance 6.5 may allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-8605"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-05-27T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in Trend Micro InterScan Web Security Virtual Appliance 6.5 may allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-8phw-63g4-q6pq",
"modified": "2022-06-03T00:00:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:18:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8605"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/solution/000253095"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-20-676"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/158171/Trend-Micro-Web-Security-Virtual-Appliance-Remote-Code-Execution.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/158423/Trend-Micro-Web-Security-Remote-Code-Execution.html"
}
],
"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-8PMG-2X8V-MFV9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-26 18:31 – Updated: 2025-06-26 18:31A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in TOTOLINK CA300-PoE 6.2c.884. This affects the function QuickSetting of the file ap.so. The manipulation of the argument hour/minute 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.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-6621"
],
"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 classified as critical has been found in TOTOLINK CA300-PoE 6.2c.884. This affects the function QuickSetting of the file ap.so. The manipulation of the argument hour/minute 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.",
"id": "GHSA-8pmg-2x8v-mfv9",
"modified": "2025-06-26T18:31:25Z",
"published": "2025-06-26T18:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-6621"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/totolink4/vuln_47/47.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/totolink4/vuln_47/47.md#poc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.313839"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.313839"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.602266"
},
{
"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-8PPH-CG3C-VGRV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:24 – Updated: 2023-01-24 21:30This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CentOS Web Panel cwp-e17.0.9.8.923. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within ajax_php_pecl.php. When parsing the modulo parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9728.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15610"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-07-28T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CentOS Web Panel cwp-e17.0.9.8.923. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within ajax_php_pecl.php. When parsing the modulo parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9728.",
"id": "GHSA-8pph-cg3c-vgrv",
"modified": "2023-01-24T21:30:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:24:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15610"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-20-757"
}
],
"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-8PQJ-VJ9J-2JF2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-04 09:30 – Updated: 2024-06-10 18:31Missing input validation and OS command integration of the input in the utnserver Pro, utnserver ProMAX, INU-100 web-interface allows authenticated command injection.This issue affects utnserver Pro, utnserver ProMAX, INU-100 version 20.1.22 and below.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-5421"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-04T08:15:11Z",
"severity": null
},
"details": "Missing input validation and OS command integration of the input in the utnserver Pro, utnserver ProMAX, INU-100 web-interface allows authenticated command injection.This issue affects utnserver Pro, utnserver ProMAX, INU-100 version 20.1.22 and below.",
"id": "GHSA-8pqj-vj9j-2jf2",
"modified": "2024-06-10T18:31:05Z",
"published": "2024-06-04T09:30:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5421"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cyberdanube.com/en/en-multiple-vulnerabilities-in-seh-untserver-pro/index.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Jun/4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8PX5-2GFR-7PH6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-19 03:30 – Updated: 2026-03-19 19:14Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-fg3m-vhrr-8gj6. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
OpenClaw versions 2026.1.21 prior to 2026.2.19 contain a command injection vulnerability in the Lobster extension's Windows shell fallback mechanism that allows attackers to inject arbitrary commands through tool-provided arguments. When spawn failures trigger shell fallback with shell: true, attackers can exploit cmd.exe command interpretation to execute malicious commands by controlling workflow arguments.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2026.1.21"
},
{
"last_affected": "2026.2.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-19T19:14:10Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-19T02:16:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Duplicate Advisory\n\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-fg3m-vhrr-8gj6. This link is maintained to preserve external references.\n\n## Original Description\nOpenClaw versions 2026.1.21 prior to 2026.2.19 contain a command injection vulnerability in the Lobster extension\u0027s Windows shell fallback mechanism that allows attackers to inject arbitrary commands through tool-provided arguments. When spawn failures trigger shell fallback with shell: true, attackers can exploit cmd.exe command interpretation to execute malicious commands by controlling workflow arguments.",
"id": "GHSA-8px5-2gfr-7ph6",
"modified": "2026-03-19T19:14:10Z",
"published": "2026-03-19T03:30:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-fg3m-vhrr-8gj6"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31995"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/ba7be018da354ea9f803ed356d20464df0437916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-command-injection-via-windows-shell-fallback-in-lobster-extension"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/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"
}
],
"summary": "Duplicate Advisory: OpenClaw has Windows Lobster shell fallback command injection in constrained fallback path",
"withdrawn": "2026-03-19T19:14:10Z"
}
GHSA-8Q4H-8CRM-5CVC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-17 22:33 – Updated: 2026-05-06 02:35Severity
High
bg can be injected into shell command construction, leading to possible RCE in affected configurations.
Summary
elFinder contains a command injection vulnerability in the resize command.
The bg (background color) parameter is accepted from user input and passed through image resize/rotate processing. In configurations that use the ImageMagick CLI backend, this value is incorporated into shell command strings without sufficient escaping. An attacker able to invoke the resize command with a crafted bg value may achieve arbitrary command execution as the web server process user.
This issue affects configurations where:
- the resize command is enabled,
- image processing uses the ImageMagick CLI backend, and
- the vulnerable code paths are reachable.
Impact
An attacker may execute arbitrary OS commands with the privileges of the web server process.
Impact depends on server configuration, enabled commands, backend image library selection, and surrounding deployment controls.
Affected versions
Affected: all versions before 2.1.66 Patched: 2.1.67
Details
The vulnerable flow is:
- The
resizecommand accepts thebgparameter from the request. - The parameter is passed into volume resize handling.
- In ImageMagick CLI code paths, the value is interpolated into shell command strings.
- Because the value is not safely constrained and escaped, shell metacharacters may be injected.
The issue was addressed by:
- validating bg against a strict allowlist of supported color formats, and
- safely escaping the value before it is passed into CLI command construction.
Workarounds
Possible mitigations for users who cannot upgrade immediately:
- disable the
resizecommand if not required, - avoid using the ImageMagick CLI backend for image processing,
- restrict access to trusted users only.
Upgrading to the patched release is strongly recommended.
Credits
Thanks to Lin, WeiChi and Drew Webber for the responsible disclosure.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "studio-42/elfinder"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.1.67"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41247"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-17T22:33:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-23T19:17:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Severity\n**High** \n`bg` can be injected into shell command construction, leading to possible RCE in affected configurations.\n\n### Summary\n\nelFinder contains a command injection vulnerability in the `resize` command.\n\nThe `bg` (background color) parameter is accepted from user input and passed through image resize/rotate processing. In configurations that use the ImageMagick CLI backend, this value is incorporated into shell command strings without sufficient escaping. An attacker able to invoke the `resize` command with a crafted `bg` value may achieve arbitrary command execution as the web server process user.\n\nThis issue affects configurations where:\n- the `resize` command is enabled,\n- image processing uses the ImageMagick CLI backend, and\n- the vulnerable code paths are reachable.\n\n\n### Impact\n\nAn attacker may execute arbitrary OS commands with the privileges of the web server process.\n\nImpact depends on server configuration, enabled commands, backend image library selection, and surrounding deployment controls.\n\n\n### Affected versions\n\nAffected: all versions before 2.1.66\nPatched: 2.1.67\n\n\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerable flow is:\n\n1. The `resize` command accepts the `bg` parameter from the request.\n2. The parameter is passed into volume resize handling.\n3. In ImageMagick CLI code paths, the value is interpolated into shell command strings.\n4. Because the value is not safely constrained and escaped, shell metacharacters may be injected.\n\nThe issue was addressed by:\n- validating `bg` against a strict allowlist of supported color formats, and\n- safely escaping the value before it is passed into CLI command construction.\n\n\n### Workarounds\n\nPossible mitigations for users who cannot upgrade immediately:\n\n- disable the `resize` command if not required,\n- avoid using the ImageMagick CLI backend for image processing,\n- restrict access to trusted users only.\n\nUpgrading to the patched release is strongly recommended.\n\n\n### Credits\n\nThanks to Lin, WeiChi and Drew Webber for the responsible disclosure.",
"id": "GHSA-8q4h-8crm-5cvc",
"modified": "2026-05-06T02:35:09Z",
"published": "2026-04-17T22:33:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/security/advisories/GHSA-8q4h-8crm-5cvc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41247"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder"
}
],
"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:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "elFinder: Command injection in resize background color parameter when using ImageMagick CLI"
}
GHSA-8Q59-7JJ3-FJ58
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-05 15:30 – Updated: 2025-08-05 15:30A vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex One (on-premise) management console could allow a pre-authenticated remote attacker to upload malicious code and execute commands on affected installations. This vulnerability is essentially the same as CVE-2025-54948 but targets a different CPU architecture.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-54987"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-05T13:15:29Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex One (on-premise) management console could allow a pre-authenticated remote attacker to upload malicious code and execute commands on affected installations. This vulnerability is essentially the same as CVE-2025-54948 but targets a different CPU architecture.",
"id": "GHSA-8q59-7jj3-fj58",
"modified": "2025-08-05T15:30:51Z",
"published": "2025-08-05T15:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-54987"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/en-US/solution/KA-0020652"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8Q5R-MMJF-575Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-10 19:33 – Updated: 2026-06-10 19:33Due to the combination of checking out PR head branches (attacker-controlled), reading .mcp.json from the working directory via default setting sources, and unconditionally enabling all project MCP servers via enableAllProjectMcpServers, it was possible for an attacker who opened a PR containing a malicious .mcp.json file to achieve arbitrary code execution on the GitHub Actions runner. This could lead to exfiltration of secrets available to the workflow (such as API keys and tokens) when a privileged user triggered the Claude action on the PR. Exploiting this required the ability to open a pull request against a repository using the claude-code-action and a privileged user or automatic trigger to invoke the action on that PR.
Users pinned to a vulnerable version of claude-code-action are advised to update to the latest version. Users referencing anthropics/claude-code-action@v1, anthropics/claude-code-action@beta, anthropics/claude-code-action@main, or other non-pinned tags will have received this fix already
Claude Code thanks hackerone.com/reptou for reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
"name": "anthropics/claude-code-action"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.74"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-47751"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-10T19:33:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Due to the combination of checking out PR head branches (attacker-controlled), reading `.mcp.json` from the working directory via default setting sources, and unconditionally enabling all project MCP servers via `enableAllProjectMcpServers`, it was possible for an attacker who opened a PR containing a malicious `.mcp.json` file to achieve arbitrary code execution on the GitHub Actions runner. This could lead to exfiltration of secrets available to the workflow (such as API keys and tokens) when a privileged user triggered the Claude action on the PR. Exploiting this required the ability to open a pull request against a repository using the claude-code-action and a privileged user or automatic trigger to invoke the action on that PR.\n\nUsers pinned to a vulnerable version of claude-code-action are advised to update to the latest version. Users referencing anthropics/claude-code-action@v1, anthropics/claude-code-action@beta, anthropics/claude-code-action@main, or other non-pinned tags will have received this fix already\n\nClaude Code thanks hackerone.com/reptou for reporting this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-8q5r-mmjf-575q",
"modified": "2026-06-10T19:33:48Z",
"published": "2026-06-10T19:33:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-action/security/advisories/GHSA-8q5r-mmjf-575q"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-action"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Claude Code Action: Malicious MCP Server Configuration in PRs Enables Remote Code Execution and Secret Exfiltration"
}
GHSA-8Q75-6F6H-8GRP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-10 21:30 – Updated: 2024-12-10 21:30An authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in the AirWave CLI. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow a remote authenticated threat actor to run arbitrary commands as a privileged user on the underlying host.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-54008"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-10T19:15:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in the AirWave CLI. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow a remote authenticated threat actor to run arbitrary commands as a privileged user on the underlying host.",
"id": "GHSA-8q75-6f6h-8grp",
"modified": "2024-12-10T21:30:52Z",
"published": "2024-12-10T21:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw04765en_us\u0026docLocale=en_US"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.