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.
8243 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-942M-937P-QXHJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-19 15:30 – Updated: 2024-03-21 03:35** UNSUPPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Operating system command injection in ekorCCP and ekorRCI, which could allow an authenticated attacker to execute commands, create new users with elevated privileges or set up a backdoor.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-47555"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-19T13:16:20Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "** UNSUPPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Operating system command injection in ekorCCP and ekorRCI, which could allow an authenticated attacker to execute commands, create new users with elevated privileges or set up a backdoor.",
"id": "GHSA-942m-937p-qxhj",
"modified": "2024-03-21T03:35:47Z",
"published": "2023-09-19T15:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-47555"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.incibe.es/en/incibe-cert/notices/aviso-sci/multiple-vulnerabilities-ormazabal-products"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-943Q-MWMV-HHVH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-02 23:32 – Updated: 2026-03-02 23:32Summary
OpenClaw Gateway exposes an authenticated HTTP endpoint (POST /tools/invoke) intended for invoking a constrained set of tools. Two issues could combine to significantly increase blast radius in misconfigured or exposed deployments:
- The HTTP gateway layer did not deny high-risk session orchestration tools by default, allowing a caller with Gateway auth to invoke tools like
sessions_spawn/sessions_sendand pivot into creating or controlling agent sessions. - ACP clients could auto-approve permission requests for risky tools with insufficient user interaction/guardrails, reducing the friction that should normally prevent silent execution or mutation.
Impact
If the Gateway is reachable by an attacker and they obtain a valid Gateway token, they may be able to:
- Escalate from single-tool invocation to spawning/controlling sessions and reach command execution capabilities depending on tool policy and runtime environment.
- Perform cross-session message injection via
sessions_send. - In ACP-integrated scenarios, obtain unintended approvals for non-read/search tool permissions.
CVSS
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H(8.8)
Affected versions
openclaw < 2026.2.14
Fixed in
openclaw >= 2026.2.14
Remediation
The default behavior is now hardened:
- PR #15390: deny high-risk tools over HTTP
/tools/invokeby default (withgateway.tools.{allow,deny}overrides) and harden ACP permission handling. - Commit
bb1c3dfe1: ACP clients now prompt for any non-read/search permission request (fail closed for mutating/execution/fetch operations). - Commit
539689a2f: security audit warns whengateway.tools.allowre-enables default-denied HTTP tools, since this can increase RCE blast radius if the Gateway is reachable. - Commit
153a7644e: ACP safe-kind inference is stricter to avoid accidental auto-approval due to substring matches (still auto-approves only confidentread/search).
Mitigations / deployment guidance
- Keep the Gateway loopback-only unless you have a strong reason not to:
gateway.bind="loopback"/openclaw gateway run --bind loopback. - Avoid exposing the Gateway directly to the public internet. Use an SSH tunnel or Tailscale to access a loopback-bound Gateway.
- Treat opting in to default-denied HTTP tools (via
gateway.tools.allow) as high-risk and audit such configurations carefully.
Credits
OpenClaw thanks @aether-ai-agent for reporting this issue and contributing remediation work.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.2.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-02T23:32:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nOpenClaw Gateway exposes an authenticated HTTP endpoint (`POST /tools/invoke`) intended for invoking a constrained set of tools. Two issues could combine to significantly increase blast radius in misconfigured or exposed deployments:\n\n- The HTTP gateway layer did not deny high-risk session orchestration tools by default, allowing a caller with Gateway auth to invoke tools like `sessions_spawn` / `sessions_send` and pivot into creating or controlling agent sessions.\n- ACP clients could auto-approve permission requests for risky tools with insufficient user interaction/guardrails, reducing the friction that should normally prevent silent execution or mutation.\n\n## Impact\n\nIf the Gateway is reachable by an attacker and they obtain a valid Gateway token, they may be able to:\n\n- Escalate from single-tool invocation to spawning/controlling sessions and reach command execution capabilities depending on tool policy and runtime environment.\n- Perform cross-session message injection via `sessions_send`.\n- In ACP-integrated scenarios, obtain unintended approvals for non-read/search tool permissions.\n\n## CVSS\n\n- `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H` (8.8)\n\n## Affected versions\n\n- `openclaw \u003c 2026.2.14`\n\n## Fixed in\n\n- `openclaw \u003e= 2026.2.14`\n\n## Remediation\n\nThe default behavior is now hardened:\n\n- PR #15390: deny high-risk tools over HTTP `/tools/invoke` by default (with `gateway.tools.{allow,deny}` overrides) and harden ACP permission handling.\n- Commit `bb1c3dfe1`: ACP clients now prompt for any non-read/search permission request (fail closed for mutating/execution/fetch operations).\n- Commit `539689a2f`: security audit warns when `gateway.tools.allow` re-enables default-denied HTTP tools, since this can increase RCE blast radius if the Gateway is reachable.\n- Commit `153a7644e`: ACP safe-kind inference is stricter to avoid accidental auto-approval due to substring matches (still auto-approves only confident `read/search`).\n\n## Mitigations / deployment guidance\n\n- Keep the Gateway loopback-only unless you have a strong reason not to: `gateway.bind=\"loopback\"` / `openclaw gateway run --bind loopback`.\n- Avoid exposing the Gateway directly to the public internet. Use an SSH tunnel or Tailscale to access a loopback-bound Gateway.\n- Treat opting in to default-denied HTTP tools (via `gateway.tools.allow`) as high-risk and audit such configurations carefully.\n\n## Credits\n\nOpenClaw thanks @aether-ai-agent for reporting this issue and contributing remediation work.",
"id": "GHSA-943q-mwmv-hhvh",
"modified": "2026-03-02T23:32:22Z",
"published": "2026-03-02T23:32:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-943q-mwmv-hhvh"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/15390"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/153a7644e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/539689a2f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/bb1c3dfe1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/ee31cd47b49f4b2f128a69a2a3745ca9db68b3be"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Gateway /tools/invoke tool escalation + ACP permission auto-approval"
}
GHSA-9448-XGGX-X86Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:49 – Updated: 2022-10-22 12:00A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the underlying operating system of an affected device that is running in multi-instance mode. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied command arguments. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting crafted input to the affected command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute commands on the underlying operating system with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1448"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-29T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the underlying operating system of an affected device that is running in multi-instance mode. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied command arguments. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting crafted input to the affected command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute commands on the underlying operating system with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-9448-xggx-x86q",
"modified": "2022-10-22T12:00:30Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:49:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1448"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ftd-cmdinj-vWY5wqZT"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-944Q-F38W-27WF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-12 21:31 – Updated: 2024-08-13 18:31In TOTOLINK X5000r v9.1.0cu.2350_b20230313, the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi contains an OS command injection vulnerability in setL2tpServerCfg. Authenicated Attackers can send malicious packet to execute arbitary commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42741"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-12T20:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In TOTOLINK X5000r v9.1.0cu.2350_b20230313, the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi contains an OS command injection vulnerability in setL2tpServerCfg. Authenicated Attackers can send malicious packet to execute arbitary commands.",
"id": "GHSA-944q-f38w-27wf",
"modified": "2024-08-13T18:31:14Z",
"published": "2024-08-12T21:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42741"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/HouseFuzz/reports/blob/main/totolink/x5000r/setL2tpServerCfg/setL2tpServerCfg.md"
}
],
"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-9457-2HHQ-WHX3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-05 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:49TOTOLINK A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 has a Command Injection vulnerability. An attacker can obtain a stable root shell through a specially constructed payload.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-30054"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-05T15:15:10Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 has a Command Injection vulnerability. An attacker can obtain a stable root shell through a specially constructed payload.",
"id": "GHSA-9457-2hhq-whx3",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:49:44Z",
"published": "2023-05-05T15:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-30054"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Am1ngl/ttt/tree/main/161"
}
],
"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-9458-GCGF-4389
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:48 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:59The Photo Sharing Plus component on Sony Bravia TV through 8.587 devices allows Shell Metacharacter Injection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-16593"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-19T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Photo Sharing Plus component on Sony Bravia TV through 8.587 devices allows Shell Metacharacter Injection.",
"id": "GHSA-9458-gcgf-4389",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:59:52Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:48:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-16593"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/zeroday/FG-VD-18-036"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/support/articles/00201041"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9477-335G-XMM2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-27 18:31 – Updated: 2026-03-27 21:31The command auto-approval module in CodeRider-Kilo contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability, rendering its whitelist security mechanism ineffective. The vulnerability stems from the incorrect use of an incompatible command parser (the Unix-based shell-quote library) to analyze commands on the Windows platform, coupled with a failure to correctly handle Windows CMD-specific escape sequences (^). Attackers can exploit this discrepancy between the parsing logic and the execution environment by constructing payloads such as git log ^" & malicious_command ^". The CodeRider-Kilo parser is deceived by the escape characters, misinterpreting the malicious command connector (&) as being within a protected string argument and thus auto-approving the command. However, the underlying Windows CMD interpreter ignores the escaped quotes, parsing and executing the subsequent malicious command directly. This allows attackers to achieve arbitrary Remote Code Execution (RCE) after bypassing what appears to be a legitimate Git whitelist check.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30302"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-27T16:16:23Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The command auto-approval module in CodeRider-Kilo contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability, rendering its whitelist security mechanism ineffective. The vulnerability stems from the incorrect use of an incompatible command parser (the Unix-based shell-quote library) to analyze commands on the Windows platform, coupled with a failure to correctly handle Windows CMD-specific escape sequences (^). Attackers can exploit this discrepancy between the parsing logic and the execution environment by constructing payloads such as git log ^\" \u0026 malicious_command ^\". The CodeRider-Kilo parser is deceived by the escape characters, misinterpreting the malicious command connector (\u0026) as being within a protected string argument and thus auto-approving the command. However, the underlying Windows CMD interpreter ignores the escaped quotes, parsing and executing the subsequent malicious command directly. This allows attackers to achieve arbitrary Remote Code Execution (RCE) after bypassing what appears to be a legitimate Git whitelist check.",
"id": "GHSA-9477-335g-xmm2",
"modified": "2026-03-27T21:31:35Z",
"published": "2026-03-27T18:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30302"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Secsys-FDU/LLM-Tool-Calling-CVEs/issues/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9478-6V8Q-5F74
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:14 – Updated: 2022-05-17 05:14The client in Novell GroupWise 8.0 before 8.0.3 HP2 and 2012 before SP1 HP1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (incorrect pointer dereference) via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-0804"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2013-02-24T04:37:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The client in Novell GroupWise 8.0 before 8.0.3 HP2 and 2012 before SP1 HP1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (incorrect pointer dereference) via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-9478-6v8q-5f74",
"modified": "2022-05-17T05:14:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T05:14:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-0804"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=792535"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.htbridge.com/advisory/HTB23131"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7011687"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-94GH-GF9P-R6HQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-09 09:31 – Updated: 2025-01-09 09:31Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') vulnerability allows OS Command Injection as root This issue affects Iocharger firmware for AC models before version 241207101
Likelihood: Moderate – The binary does not seem to be used by the web interface, so it might be more difficult to find. It seems to be largely the same binary as used by the Iocharger Pedestal charging station, however. The attacker will also need a (low privilege) account to gain access to the binary, or convince a user with such access to execute a crafted HTTP request.
Impact: Critical – The attacker has full control over the charging station as the root user, and can arbitrarily add, modify and delete files and services.
CVSS clarification: Any network connection serving the web interface is vulnerable (AV:N) and there are no additional measures to circumvent (AC:L) nor does the attack require special conditions to be present (AT:N). The attack requires authentication, but the level does not matter (PR:L), nor is user interaction required (UI:N). The attack leads to a full compromised (VC:H/VI:H/VA:H) and a compromised device can be used to potentially "pivot" into a network that should nopt be reachable (SC:L/SI:L/SA:H). Because this is an EV charger handing significant power, there is a potential safety impact (S:P). THe attack can be autometed (AU:Y).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43651"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-09T08:15:27Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability allows OS Command Injection as root\nThis issue affects Iocharger firmware for AC models before version 241207101\n\nLikelihood: Moderate \u2013 The \u003credacted\u003e binary does not seem to be used by the web interface, so it might be more difficult to find. It seems to be largely the same binary as used by the Iocharger Pedestal charging station, however. The attacker will also need a (low privilege) account to gain access to the \u003credacted\u003e binary, or convince a user with such access to execute a crafted HTTP request.\n\nImpact: Critical \u2013 The attacker has full control over the charging station as the root user, and can arbitrarily add, modify and delete files and services.\n\nCVSS clarification:\u00a0Any network connection serving the web interface is vulnerable (AV:N) and there are no additional measures to circumvent (AC:L) nor does the attack require special conditions to be present (AT:N). The attack requires authentication, but the level does not matter (PR:L), nor is user interaction required (UI:N). The attack leads to a full compromised (VC:H/VI:H/VA:H) and a compromised device can be used to potentially \"pivot\" into a network that should nopt be reachable (SC:L/SI:L/SA:H). Because this is an EV charger handing significant power, there is a potential safety impact (S:P). THe attack can be autometed (AU:Y).",
"id": "GHSA-94gh-gf9p-r6hq",
"modified": "2025-01-09T09:31:42Z",
"published": "2025-01-09T09:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43651"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/CVE-2024-43651"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/DIVD-2024-00035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://iocharger.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:H/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:P/AU:Y/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-94JM-P5XH-JJ8R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-12 21:31 – Updated: 2025-12-12 21:31Atcom 100M IP Phones firmware version 2.7.x.x contains an authenticated command injection vulnerability in the web configuration CGI script that allows attackers to execute arbitrary system commands. Attackers can inject shell commands through the 'cmd' parameter in web_cgi_main.cgi, enabling remote code execution with administrative credentials.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-58314"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-12T20:15:39Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Atcom 100M IP Phones firmware version 2.7.x.x contains an authenticated command injection vulnerability in the web configuration CGI script that allows attackers to execute arbitrary system commands. Attackers can inject shell commands through the \u0027cmd\u0027 parameter in web_cgi_main.cgi, enabling remote code execution with administrative credentials.",
"id": "GHSA-94jm-p5xh-jj8r",
"modified": "2025-12-12T21:31:38Z",
"published": "2025-12-12T21:31:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-58314"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.atcom.cn/html/yingwenban/Product/Fast_IP_phone/2017/1023/135.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/51742"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/atcom-xx-authenticated-command-injection-via-web-configuration-cgi"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
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.