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.
8331 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-GJHP-RRWF-M3PX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:45 – Updated: 2023-04-26 21:30In the /HNAP1/SetWiFiVerifyAlpha message, the WPSPIN parameter is vulnerable, and the vulnerability affects D-Link DIR-822 B1 202KRb06 devices. In the SetWiFiVerifyAlpha.php source code, the WPSPIN parameter is saved in the $rphyinf1."/media/wps/enrollee/pin" and $rphyinf2."/media/wps/enrollee/pin" and $rphyinf3."/media/wps/enrollee/pin" internal configuration memory without any regex checking. And in the do_wps function of the wps.php source code, the data in $rphyinf3."/media/wps/enrollee/pin" is used with the wpatalk command without any regex checking. A vulnerable /HNAP1/SetWiFiVerifyAlpha XML message could have shell metacharacters in the WPSPIN element such as the telnetd string.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-19990"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-05-13T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In the /HNAP1/SetWiFiVerifyAlpha message, the WPSPIN parameter is vulnerable, and the vulnerability affects D-Link DIR-822 B1 202KRb06 devices. In the SetWiFiVerifyAlpha.php source code, the WPSPIN parameter is saved in the $rphyinf1.\"/media/wps/enrollee/pin\" and $rphyinf2.\"/media/wps/enrollee/pin\" and $rphyinf3.\"/media/wps/enrollee/pin\" internal configuration memory without any regex checking. And in the do_wps function of the wps.php source code, the data in $rphyinf3.\"/media/wps/enrollee/pin\" is used with the wpatalk command without any regex checking. A vulnerable /HNAP1/SetWiFiVerifyAlpha XML message could have shell metacharacters in the WPSPIN element such as the `telnetd` string.",
"id": "GHSA-gjhp-rrwf-m3px",
"modified": "2023-04-26T21:30:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:45:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-19990"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pr0v3rbs/CVE/tree/master/CVE-2018-19986%20-%2019990"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-GJJM-7G3M-H4M5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-22 21:32 – Updated: 2024-11-22 21:32Logsign Unified SecOps Platform Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Logsign Unified SecOps Platform. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed.
The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the HTTP API. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of 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-24165.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-5717"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-22T20:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Logsign Unified SecOps Platform Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Logsign Unified SecOps Platform. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the implementation of the HTTP API. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of 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-24165.",
"id": "GHSA-gjjm-7g3m-h4m5",
"modified": "2024-11-22T21:32:16Z",
"published": "2024-11-22T21:32:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5717"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.logsign.net/hc/en-us/articles/19316621924754-03-06-2024-Version-6-4-8-Release-Notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-24-617"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GJQF-66PG-H4CM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:10 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:10An issue was discovered on D-Link DIR-878 devices with firmware 1.12A1. This issue is a Command Injection allowing a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code, and get a root shell. A command Injection vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a crafted /HNAP1 POST request. This occurs when any HNAP API function triggers a call to the system function with untrusted input from the request body for the SetStaticRouteIPv4Settings API function, as demonstrated by shell metacharacters in the Gateway field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-8319"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-02-13T03:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered on D-Link DIR-878 devices with firmware 1.12A1. This issue is a Command Injection allowing a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code, and get a root shell. A command Injection vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a crafted /HNAP1 POST request. This occurs when any HNAP API function triggers a call to the system function with untrusted input from the request body for the SetStaticRouteIPv4Settings API function, as demonstrated by shell metacharacters in the Gateway field.",
"id": "GHSA-gjqf-66pg-h4cm",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:10:34Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:10:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-8319"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lieanu/vuls/blob/master/dlink/DIR-878/staticrouterv4.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-GJQH-4GC9-VCHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:48 – Updated: 2022-05-24 16:48Western Digital WD My Book Live (all versions) has a root Remote Command Execution bug via shell metacharacters in the /api/1.0/rest/language_configuration language parameter. It can be triggered by anyone who knows the IP address of the affected device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-18472"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-19T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Western Digital WD My Book Live (all versions) has a root Remote Command Execution bug via shell metacharacters in the /api/1.0/rest/language_configuration language parameter. It can be triggered by anyone who knows the IP address of the affected device.",
"id": "GHSA-gjqh-4gc9-vchf",
"modified": "2022-05-24T16:48:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:48:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-18472"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://community.wd.com/t/action-required-on-my-book-live-and-my-book-live-duo/268147"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wdc.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.westerndigital.com/support/productsecurity/wdc-21008-recommended-security-measures-wd-mybooklive-wd-mybookliveduo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wizcase.com/blog/hack-2018"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GJQQ-6R35-W3R8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-15 20:10 – Updated: 2026-01-15 22:33Summary
Arcane’s updater service supported lifecycle labels com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.pre-update and com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.post-update that allowed defining a command to run before or after a container update. The label value is passed directly to /bin/sh -c without sanitization or validation.
Because any authenticated user (not limited to administrators) can create projects through the API, an attacker can create a project that specifies one of these lifecycle labels with a malicious command. When an administrator later triggers a container update (either manually or via scheduled update checks), Arcane reads the lifecycle label and executes its value as a shell command inside the container.
If the container is configured with host volume mounts in its Compose definition, the executed command may be able to read from or write to the host filesystem through the mounted paths. This can enable data theft and, in some configurations, escalation to full host compromise (for example, if /var/run/docker.sock is mounted).
Impact
- Remote code execution (RCE) within the updated container context.
- Host filesystem access when host volumes are mounted into the container.
- Potential data exfiltration via outbound network requests or by exposing readable files.
- Potential full host compromise if sensitive mounts are present (e.g., /var/run/docker.sock).
Patches
The lifecycle labels com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.pre-update and com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.post-update have been removed to eliminate this attack surface.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane/backend"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260114065515-5a9c2f92e11f"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-23520"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-15T20:10:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-15T20:16:05Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nArcane\u2019s updater service supported lifecycle labels `com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.pre-update` and `com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.post-update` that allowed defining a command to run before or after a container update. The label value is passed directly to /bin/sh -c without sanitization or validation.\n\nBecause any authenticated user (not limited to administrators) can create projects through the API, an attacker can create a project that specifies one of these lifecycle labels with a malicious command. When an administrator later triggers a container update (either manually or via scheduled update checks), Arcane reads the lifecycle label and executes its value as a shell command inside the container.\n\nIf the container is configured with host volume mounts in its Compose definition, the executed command may be able to read from or write to the host filesystem through the mounted paths. This can enable data theft and, in some configurations, escalation to full host compromise (for example, if /var/run/docker.sock is mounted).\n\n### Impact\n\n- Remote code execution (RCE) within the updated container context.\n- Host filesystem access when host volumes are mounted into the container.\n- Potential data exfiltration via outbound network requests or by exposing readable files.\n- Potential full host compromise if sensitive mounts are present (e.g., /var/run/docker.sock).\n\n### Patches\nThe lifecycle labels `com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.pre-update` and `com.getarcaneapp.arcane.lifecycle.post-update` have been removed to eliminate this attack surface.",
"id": "GHSA-gjqq-6r35-w3r8",
"modified": "2026-01-15T22:33:55Z",
"published": "2026-01-15T20:10:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane/security/advisories/GHSA-gjqq-6r35-w3r8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-23520"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane/pull/1468"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane/commit/5a9c2f92e11f86f8997da8c672844468f930b7e4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane/releases/tag/v1.13.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Arcane Has a Command Injection in Arcane Updater Lifecycle Labels That Enables RCE"
}
GHSA-GJQW-42C8-8W8J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:08 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:08A command injection vulnerability in HNAP1/GetNetworkTomographySettings of Motorola CX2 router CX 1.0.2 Build 20190508 Rel.97360n allows attackers to execute arbitrary code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-21935"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-21T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A command injection vulnerability in HNAP1/GetNetworkTomographySettings of Motorola CX2 router CX 1.0.2 Build 20190508 Rel.97360n allows attackers to execute arbitrary code.",
"id": "GHSA-gjqw-42c8-8w8j",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:08:49Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:08:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-21935"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cc-crack/router/blob/master/motocx2.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://l0n0l.xyz/post/motocx2"
}
],
"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-GJVP-GQ3C-WH68
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-13 00:01 – Updated: 2026-07-05 03:30Command injection vulnerability in Druva inSync 6.9.0 for MacOS, allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via crafted payload to the local HTTP server due to un-sanitized call to the python os.system library.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-36667"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-12T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Command injection vulnerability in Druva inSync 6.9.0 for MacOS, allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via crafted payload to the local HTTP server due to un-sanitized call to the python os.system library.",
"id": "GHSA-gjvp-gq3c-wh68",
"modified": "2026-07-05T03:30:49Z",
"published": "2022-07-13T00:01:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36667"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.druva.com/Knowledge_Base/Security_Update/Security_Advisory_for_inSync_Client_7.0.1_and_before"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://imhotepisinvisible.com/druva-lpe"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://druva.com"
}
],
"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-GJW9-34GF-RP6M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 21:53 – Updated: 2026-04-09 14:28Location: packages/server/src/automations/steps/bash.ts
Description
The bash automation step executes user-provided commands using execSync without proper sanitization or validation. User input is processed through processStringSync which allows template interpolation, potentially allowing arbitrary command execution.
Code Reference
```21:28:packages/server/src/automations/steps/bash.ts const command = processStringSync(inputs.code, context)
let stdout,
success = true
try {
stdout = execSync(command, {
timeout: environment.QUERY_THREAD_TIMEOUT,
}).toString()
#### Attack Vector
An attacker with access to create or modify automations can inject malicious shell commands by including template syntax that evaluates to command injection payloads (e.g., `$(rm -rf /)`, `; malicious-command`, `| malicious-command`).
#### Impact
- Remote code execution (RCE)
- Complete system compromise
- Data exfiltration
- Lateral movement within the infrastructure
#### Recommendation
1. **Immediate**: Disable bash automation step in production until fixed
2. Implement a whitelist of allowed commands
3. Use parameterized command execution with proper escaping
4. Implement command argument validation
5. Consider using a restricted shell or command sandboxing
6. Add rate limiting and monitoring for command execution
#### Example Fix
```typescript
import { spawn } from "child_process"
// Validate against whitelist
const ALLOWED_COMMANDS = ["echo", "date", "pwd"] // Extend as needed
function sanitizeCommand(input: string): string {
// Remove dangerous characters and command chaining
return input.replace(/[;&|`$(){}[\]]/g, "").trim()
}
function validateCommand(cmd: string): boolean {
const parts = cmd.split(/\s+/)
return ALLOWED_COMMANDS.includes(parts[0])
}
export async function run({ inputs, context }) {
if (!inputs.code) {
return { stdout: "Budibase bash automation failed: Invalid inputs" }
}
const processedCommand = processStringSync(inputs.code, context)
const sanitized = sanitizeCommand(processedCommand)
if (!validateCommand(sanitized)) {
return {
success: false,
stdout: "Command not allowed"
}
}
// Use spawn instead of execSync with proper argument handling
return new Promise((resolve) => {
const [command, ...args] = sanitized.split(/\s+/)
const proc = spawn(command, args, {
timeout: environment.QUERY_THREAD_TIMEOUT,
})
let stdout = ""
proc.stdout.on("data", (data) => { stdout += data })
proc.on("close", (code) => {
resolve({ stdout, success: code === 0 })
})
})
}
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@budibase/server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.33.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25044"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-03T21:53:32Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-03T16:16:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "**Location**: `packages/server/src/automations/steps/bash.ts` \n\n#### Description\nThe bash automation step executes user-provided commands using `execSync` without proper sanitization or validation. User input is processed through `processStringSync` which allows template interpolation, potentially allowing arbitrary command execution.\n\n#### Code Reference\n```21:28:packages/server/src/automations/steps/bash.ts\n const command = processStringSync(inputs.code, context)\n\n let stdout,\n success = true\n try {\n stdout = execSync(command, {\n timeout: environment.QUERY_THREAD_TIMEOUT,\n }).toString()\n```\n\n#### Attack Vector\nAn attacker with access to create or modify automations can inject malicious shell commands by including template syntax that evaluates to command injection payloads (e.g., `$(rm -rf /)`, `; malicious-command`, `| malicious-command`).\n\n#### Impact\n- Remote code execution (RCE)\n- Complete system compromise\n- Data exfiltration\n- Lateral movement within the infrastructure\n\n#### Recommendation\n1. **Immediate**: Disable bash automation step in production until fixed\n2. Implement a whitelist of allowed commands\n3. Use parameterized command execution with proper escaping\n4. Implement command argument validation\n5. Consider using a restricted shell or command sandboxing\n6. Add rate limiting and monitoring for command execution\n\n#### Example Fix\n```typescript\nimport { spawn } from \"child_process\"\n\n// Validate against whitelist\nconst ALLOWED_COMMANDS = [\"echo\", \"date\", \"pwd\"] // Extend as needed\n\nfunction sanitizeCommand(input: string): string {\n // Remove dangerous characters and command chaining\n return input.replace(/[;\u0026|`$(){}[\\]]/g, \"\").trim()\n}\n\nfunction validateCommand(cmd: string): boolean {\n const parts = cmd.split(/\\s+/)\n return ALLOWED_COMMANDS.includes(parts[0])\n}\n\nexport async function run({ inputs, context }) {\n if (!inputs.code) {\n return { stdout: \"Budibase bash automation failed: Invalid inputs\" }\n }\n\n const processedCommand = processStringSync(inputs.code, context)\n const sanitized = sanitizeCommand(processedCommand)\n \n if (!validateCommand(sanitized)) {\n return {\n success: false,\n stdout: \"Command not allowed\"\n }\n }\n\n // Use spawn instead of execSync with proper argument handling\n return new Promise((resolve) =\u003e {\n const [command, ...args] = sanitized.split(/\\s+/)\n const proc = spawn(command, args, {\n timeout: environment.QUERY_THREAD_TIMEOUT,\n })\n \n let stdout = \"\"\n proc.stdout.on(\"data\", (data) =\u003e { stdout += data })\n proc.on(\"close\", (code) =\u003e {\n resolve({ stdout, success: code === 0 })\n })\n })\n}\n```",
"id": "GHSA-gjw9-34gf-rp6m",
"modified": "2026-04-09T14:28:10Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T21:53:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Budibase/budibase/security/advisories/GHSA-gjw9-34gf-rp6m"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25044"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Budibase/budibase"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Budibase/budibase/releases/tag/3.33.2"
}
],
"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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Budibase: Command Injection in Bash Automation Step"
}
GHSA-GJWQ-MGPF-VHGC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:26 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:26FusionCompute 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability. The software does not sufficiently validate certain parameters post from user, successful exploit could allow an authenticated attacker to launch a command injection attack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-9242"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-08-17T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "FusionCompute 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability. The software does not sufficiently validate certain parameters post from user, successful exploit could allow an authenticated attacker to launch a command injection attack.",
"id": "GHSA-gjwq-mgpf-vhgc",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:26:06Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:26:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-9242"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20200812-01-compute-en"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GJWR-GFVM-VWRR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:39 – Updated: 2022-08-06 00:00Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV110W, RV130, RV130W, and RV215W Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to inject arbitrary commands that are executed with root privileges. The 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. Cisco has not released software updates that address these vulnerabilities.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1148"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-13T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV110W, RV130, RV130W, and RV215W Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to inject arbitrary commands that are executed with root privileges. The 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. Cisco has not released software updates that address these vulnerabilities.",
"id": "GHSA-gjwr-gfvm-vwrr",
"modified": "2022-08-06T00:00:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:39:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1148"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-rv-command-inject-LBdQ2KRN"
}
],
"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.