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.
8322 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G7HF-VV6M-6F8Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-02 18:30 – Updated: 2024-02-02 18:30An OS command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow authenticated administrators to execute commands via a network.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions: QTS 5.1.3.2578 build 20231110 and later QuTS hero h5.1.3.2578 build 20231110 and later QuTScloud c5.1.5.2651 and later
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39302"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-02T16:15:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An OS command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow authenticated administrators to execute commands via a network.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:\nQTS 5.1.3.2578 build 20231110 and later\nQuTS hero h5.1.3.2578 build 20231110 and later\nQuTScloud c5.1.5.2651 and later\n",
"id": "GHSA-g7hf-vv6m-6f8q",
"modified": "2024-02-02T18:30:30Z",
"published": "2024-02-02T18:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39302"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-23-33"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G7J6-5RWP-HRCP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-07 00:01 – Updated: 2022-09-14 00:00OS Command Injection vulnerability in Hitachi RAID Manager Storage Replication Adapter allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary OS commands. This issue affects: Hitachi RAID Manager Storage Replication Adapter 02.01.04 versions prior to 02.03.02 on Windows; 02.05.00 versions prior to 02.05.01 on Windows and Docker.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-34883"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-06T07:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "OS Command Injection vulnerability in Hitachi RAID Manager Storage Replication Adapter allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary OS commands. This issue affects: Hitachi RAID Manager Storage Replication Adapter 02.01.04 versions prior to 02.03.02 on Windows; 02.05.00 versions prior to 02.05.01 on Windows and Docker.",
"id": "GHSA-g7j6-5rwp-hrcp",
"modified": "2022-09-14T00:00:51Z",
"published": "2022-09-07T00:01:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-34883"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.hitachi.co.jp/products/it/storage-solutions/global/sec_info/2022/2022_307.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.hitachi.com/products/it/storage-solutions/sec_info/2022/2022_307.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-G7X9-34MW-RVCV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:41 – Updated: 2022-08-06 00:00Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV016, RV042, RV042G, RV082, RV320, and RV325 Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to inject arbitrary commands that are executed with root privileges. These vulnerabilities are due to improper validation of user-supplied input in the web-based management interface. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending crafted HTTP requests to a targeted device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code as the root user on the underlying operating system. To exploit these vulnerabilities, an attacker would need to have valid administrator credentials on an affected device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1318"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-02-04T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV016, RV042, RV042G, RV082, RV320, and RV325 Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to inject arbitrary commands that are executed with root privileges. These vulnerabilities are due to improper validation of user-supplied input in the web-based management interface. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending crafted HTTP requests to a targeted device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code as the root user on the underlying operating system. To exploit these vulnerabilities, an attacker would need to have valid administrator credentials on an affected device.",
"id": "GHSA-g7x9-34mw-rvcv",
"modified": "2022-08-06T00:00:38Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:41:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1318"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-rv-command-inject-BY4c5zd"
}
],
"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-G827-H3JP-QR6M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-16 09:33 – Updated: 2024-08-01 21:31** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** A vulnerability was found in D-Link DAR-7000-40 V31R02B1413C and classified as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /useratte/resmanage.php. The manipulation of the argument load leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier VDB-264533 was assigned to this vulnerability. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: Vendor was contacted early and confirmed immediately that the product is end-of-life. It should be retired and replaced.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-4965"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-16T08:15:39Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** A vulnerability was found in D-Link DAR-7000-40 V31R02B1413C and classified as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /useratte/resmanage.php. The manipulation of the argument load leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier VDB-264533 was assigned to this vulnerability. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: Vendor was contacted early and confirmed immediately that the product is end-of-life. It should be retired and replaced.",
"id": "GHSA-g827-h3jp-qr6m",
"modified": "2024-08-01T21:31:40Z",
"published": "2024-05-16T09:33:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4965"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/h0e4a0r1t/h0e4a0r1t.github.io/blob/master/2024/%3CWHB%7Cj%5CIbSU0m4%3A_/D-LINK-DAR-7000_RCE_%20resmanage.php.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportannouncement.us.dlink.com/security/publication.aspx?name=SAP10354"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.264533"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.264533"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.333784"
}
],
"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: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-G82M-FFQ2-47Q8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-15 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:51IBM Security Directory Suite VA 8.0.1 through 8.0.1.19 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the system by sending a specially crafted request. IBM X-Force ID: 228439.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-32752"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-15T03:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM Security Directory Suite VA 8.0.1 through 8.0.1.19 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the system by sending a specially crafted request. IBM X-Force ID: 228439.",
"id": "GHSA-g82m-ffq2-47q8",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:51:39Z",
"published": "2023-06-15T03:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-32752"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/228439"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7001693"
}
],
"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-G847-XW4J-F8WR
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 setUrlFilterRules. Authenicated Attackers can send malicious packet to execute arbitary commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42742"
],
"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 setUrlFilterRules. Authenicated Attackers can send malicious packet to execute arbitary commands.",
"id": "GHSA-g847-xw4j-f8wr",
"modified": "2024-08-13T18:31:14Z",
"published": "2024-08-12T21:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42742"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/HouseFuzz/reports/blob/main/totolink/x5000r/setUrlFilterRules/setUrlFilterRules.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-G84Q-54HF-36RG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-11 15:31 – Updated: 2024-09-18 22:11A vulnerability in significant-gravitas/autogpt version 0.5.1 allows an attacker to bypass the shell commands denylist settings. The issue arises when the denylist is configured to block specific commands, such as whoami and /bin/whoami. An attacker can circumvent this restriction by executing commands with a modified path, such as /bin/./whoami, which is not recognized by the denylist.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "agpt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.5.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-6091"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-09-18T22:11:39Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-11T13:15:03Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in significant-gravitas/autogpt version 0.5.1 allows an attacker to bypass the shell commands denylist settings. The issue arises when the denylist is configured to block specific commands, such as `whoami` and `/bin/whoami`. An attacker can circumvent this restriction by executing commands with a modified path, such as `/bin/./whoami`, which is not recognized by the denylist.",
"id": "GHSA-g84q-54hf-36rg",
"modified": "2024-09-18T22:11:39Z",
"published": "2024-09-11T15:31:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-6091"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/significant-gravitas/autogpt/commit/ef691359b774a1f9f80cf4f5ace9821967b718ed"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/8a742c13-bb5e-4bc9-8b86-049d8a386050"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "AutoGPT bypass of the shell commands denylist settings"
}
GHSA-G85V-WF27-67XC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-18 23:48 – Updated: 2024-11-19 20:50Summary
Versions of step-security/harden-runner prior to v2.10.2 contain multiple command injection weaknesses via environment variables that could potentially be exploited under specific conditions. However, due to the current execution order of pre-steps in GitHub Actions and the placement of harden-runner as the first step in a job, the likelihood of exploitation is low as the Harden-Runner action reads the environment variable during the pre-step stage. There are no known exploits at this time.
Details
-
setup.ts:169 1 performs
execSyncwith a command that gets invoked after interpretation by the shell. This command includes an interpolatedprocess.env.USERvariable, which an attacker could modify (without actually creating a new user) to inject arbitrary shell expressions into thisexecSync. This may or may not be likely in practice, but I believe the hygienic way to perform the underlying operation is to useexecFileSyncor similar and bypass the underlying shell evaluation. -
setup.ts:229 2 has a nearly identical
execSyncto (1) above, but with$USERfor shell-level interpolation rather than string interpolation. However, this is still injectable and would be best replaced by anexecFileSync, per above. -
arc-runner:40-44 3 has an
execSyncwith multiple string interpolations. Most of these do not appear immediately injectible (since they appear to come from presumed trusted API responses), but the expansion ofgetRunnerTempDir()may be injectable due to its dependence on potentially attacker-controllable environment variables (e.g.RUNNER_TEMP). The underlying operation appears to be a trivial file copy, so this entire subprocess should in theory be replaceable with ordinary NodeJSfsAPI calls instead. -
arc-runner:53 4 demonstrates the same weakness, and has the same resolution as (3).
-
arc-runner:57 demonstrates the same weakness as (3) and (4), and has the same resolution.
-
arc-runner:61 demonstrates the same weakness as (3), (4), and (5), and has the same resolution.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
"name": "step-security/harden-runner"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.10.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-52587"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-11-18T23:48:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-18T22:15:09Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nVersions of step-security/harden-runner prior to v2.10.2 contain multiple command injection weaknesses via environment variables that could potentially be exploited under specific conditions. However, due to the current execution order of pre-steps in GitHub Actions and the placement of harden-runner as the first step in a job, the likelihood of exploitation is low as the Harden-Runner action reads the environment variable during the pre-step stage. There are no known exploits at this time. \n\n### Details\n\n1. setup.ts:169 [1] performs `execSync` with a command that gets\ninvoked after interpretation by the shell. This command includes an\ninterpolated `process.env.USER` variable, which an attacker could\nmodify (without actually creating a new user) to inject arbitrary\nshell expressions into this `execSync`. This may or may not be likely\nin practice, but I believe the hygienic way to perform the underlying\noperation is to use `execFileSync` or similar and bypass the\nunderlying shell evaluation.\n\n2. setup.ts:229 [2] has a nearly identical `execSync` to (1) above,\nbut with `$USER` for shell-level interpolation rather than string\ninterpolation. However, this is still injectable and would be best\nreplaced by an `execFileSync`, per above.\n\n3. arc-runner:40-44 [3] has an `execSync` with multiple string\ninterpolations. Most of these do not appear immediately injectible\n(since they appear to come from presumed trusted API responses), but\nthe expansion of `getRunnerTempDir()` may be injectable due to its\ndependence on potentially attacker-controllable environment variables\n(e.g. `RUNNER_TEMP`). The underlying operation appears to be a trivial\nfile copy, so this entire subprocess should in theory be replaceable\nwith ordinary NodeJS `fs` API calls instead.\n\n4. arc-runner:53 [4] demonstrates the same weakness, and has the same\nresolution as (3).\n\n5. arc-runner:57 demonstrates the same weakness as (3) and (4), and\nhas the same resolution.\n\n6. arc-runner:61 demonstrates the same weakness as (3), (4), and (5),\nand has the same resolution.\n\n\n[1]: https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/setup.ts#L169\n\n[2]: https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/setup.ts#L229\n\n[3]: https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L40-L44\n\n[4]: https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L53\n\n[5]: https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L57\n\n[6]: https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L61",
"id": "GHSA-g85v-wf27-67xc",
"modified": "2024-11-19T20:50:10Z",
"published": "2024-11-18T23:48:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/security/advisories/GHSA-g85v-wf27-67xc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52587"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/commit/0080882f6c36860b6ba35c610c98ce87d4e2f26f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L40-L44"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L53"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L57"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/arc-runner.ts#L61"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/setup.ts#L169"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/step-security/harden-runner/blob/951b48540b429070694bc8abd82fd6901eb123ca/src/setup.ts#L229"
}
],
"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:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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": "Harden-Runner has a command injection weaknesses in `setup.ts` and `arc-runner.ts`"
}
GHSA-G88J-56QQ-GWX6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-08 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:50Metersphere v1.20.20-lts-79d354a6 is vulnerable to Remote Command Execution. The system command reverse-shell can be executed at the custom code snippet function of the metersphere system workbench
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29944"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-08T01:15:08Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Metersphere v1.20.20-lts-79d354a6 is vulnerable to Remote Command Execution. The system command reverse-shell can be executed at the custom code snippet function of the metersphere system workbench",
"id": "GHSA-g88j-56qq-gwx6",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:50:12Z",
"published": "2023-05-08T03:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29944"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/metersphere/metersphere"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hacku.top/wl/?id=N67LxQL238Tsw9PDok5fy8tihEO0jI7L"
}
],
"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-G8FM-5MH4-G978
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-01 18:30 – Updated: 2024-03-01 18:30An OS Command Injection vulnerability affecting documentation server on 3DEXPERIENCE from Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2022x through Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2024x, SIMULIA Abaqus from Release 2022 through Release 2024, SIMULIA Isight from Release 2022 through Release 2024 and CATIA Composer from Release R2023 through Release R2024. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary command execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-1624"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-01T16:15:45Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An OS Command Injection vulnerability affecting documentation server on 3DEXPERIENCE from Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2022x through Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2024x, SIMULIA Abaqus from Release 2022 through Release 2024, SIMULIA Isight from Release 2022 through Release 2024 and CATIA Composer from Release R2023 through Release R2024. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary command execution.",
"id": "GHSA-g8fm-5mh4-g978",
"modified": "2024-03-01T18:30:23Z",
"published": "2024-03-01T18:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1624"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.3ds.com/vulnerability/advisories"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.