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.
8340 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-HCJF-RP5H-G5H3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:48 – Updated: 2024-10-23 18:32In SaltStack Salt 2016.9 through 3002.6, a command injection vulnerability exists in the snapper module that allows for local privilege escalation on a minion. The attack requires that a file is created with a pathname that is backed up by snapper, and that the master calls the snapper.diff function (which executes popen unsafely).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3002.6"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "salt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2016.11.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3003rc1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-31607"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-23T06:37:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-23T06:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In SaltStack Salt 2016.9 through 3002.6, a command injection vulnerability exists in the snapper module that allows for local privilege escalation on a minion. The attack requires that a file is created with a pathname that is backed up by snapper, and that the master calls the snapper.diff function (which executes popen unsafely).",
"id": "GHSA-hcjf-rp5h-g5h3",
"modified": "2024-10-23T18:32:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:48:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-31607"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/salt/PYSEC-2021-56.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2021/11/msg00009.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6BUWUF5VTENNP2ZYZBVFKPSUHLKLUBD5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ACVT7M4YLZRLWWQ6SGRK3C6TOF4FXOXT"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LDKMAJXYFHM4USVX3H5V2GCCBGASWUSM"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MBAHHSGZLEJRCG4DX6J4RBWJAAWH55RQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6BUWUF5VTENNP2ZYZBVFKPSUHLKLUBD5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ACVT7M4YLZRLWWQ6SGRK3C6TOF4FXOXT"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LDKMAJXYFHM4USVX3H5V2GCCBGASWUSM"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MBAHHSGZLEJRCG4DX6J4RBWJAAWH55RQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.stealthcopter.com/saltstack-snapper-minion-privledge-escaltion"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202310-22"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2021/dsa-5011"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Command Injection in SaltStack Salt"
}
GHSA-HCR7-33VG-78FX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-26 21:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:10A valid, authenticated LXCA user with elevated privileges may be able to execute command injections through crafted calls to a specific web API.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-34420"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-26T20:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A valid, authenticated LXCA user with elevated privileges may be able to execute command injections through crafted calls to a specific web API.",
"id": "GHSA-hcr7-33vg-78fx",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:10:49Z",
"published": "2023-06-26T21:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-34420"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/LEN-98715"
}
],
"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-HCWQ-X9FW-8CFQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 16:16 – Updated: 2026-06-12 22:01Summary
The @apostrophecms/cli package contains a command injection vulnerability in the apos create command. User-supplied input from the password prompt is embedded directly into a shell command without proper sanitization or escaping. This allows execution of arbitrary commands on the host system.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Details
Vulnerable file: lib/commands/create.js Location: Line 186
The CLI collects a password using an interactive prompt and passes it directly into a shell command.
Vulnerable code:
const response = await prompts({ type: 'password', name: 'pw', message: '🔏 Please enter a password:' });
exec(echo "${response.pw}" | ${createUserCommand});
The value of response.pw is not validated, sanitized, or escaped before being used in exec().
This allows shell metacharacters such as ;, &&, and $() to break out of the intended command and execute arbitrary commands.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Steps to Reproduce
1) Install the CLI npm install -g @apostrophecms/cli 2) Create a new project mkdir testproject && cd testproject apos create mysite 3)When prompted for the admin password, enter "; id > /tmp/apos_rce_proof.txt; echo " 4)Verify command execution cat /tmp/apos_rce_proof.txt
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Proof of Concept Output
uid=1000(vboxuser) gid=1000(vboxuser) groups=1000(vboxuser),27(sudo),984(docker)
This confirms arbitrary command execution with the privileges of the user running the CLI.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Impact
Arbitrary command execution on the developer’s machine Execution occurs with the privileges of the user running the CLI
This can lead to:
File modification or deletion Credential exposure System compromise depending on user privileges
An attacker can exploit this by influencing the password input (for example, through social engineering, malicious documentation, or compromised automation scripts).
The proof-of-concept shows execution under a user belonging to privileged groups such as sudo and docker, which may allow further privilege escalation depending on system configuration.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Suggested Fix
Avoid using exec() with user-controlled input.
Use execFile() instead:
const { execFileSync } = require('child_process');
execFileSync('node', [appJsPath, userTask, 'admin', 'admin'], { input: response.pw + '\n' });
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Affected Version
All current versions of @apostrophecms/cli
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Tested On
Ubuntu 22.04 Node.js v18.19.1
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CWE
CWE-78 — Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@apostrophecms/cli"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "3.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42853"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-14T16:16:16Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-12T21:16:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Summary\n\nThe @apostrophecms/cli package contains a command injection vulnerability in the apos create command.\nUser-supplied input from the password prompt is embedded directly into a shell command without proper sanitization or escaping.\nThis allows execution of arbitrary commands on the host system.\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nDetails\n\nVulnerable file: lib/commands/create.js\nLocation: Line 186\n\nThe CLI collects a password using an interactive prompt and passes it directly into a shell command.\n\nVulnerable code:\n\nconst response = await prompts({\ntype: \u0027password\u0027,\nname: \u0027pw\u0027,\nmessage: \u0027\ud83d\udd0f Please enter a password:\u0027\n});\n\nexec(echo \"${response.pw}\" | ${createUserCommand});\n\nThe value of response.pw is not validated, sanitized, or escaped before being used in exec().\n\nThis allows shell metacharacters such as ;, \u0026\u0026, and $() to break out of the intended command and execute arbitrary commands.\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nSteps to Reproduce\n\n1) Install the CLI\n npm install -g @apostrophecms/cli\n2) Create a new project\n mkdir testproject \u0026\u0026 cd testproject\n apos create mysite\n3)When prompted for the admin password, enter\n \"; id \u003e /tmp/apos_rce_proof.txt; echo \"\n4)Verify command execution\n cat /tmp/apos_rce_proof.txt\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nProof of Concept Output\n\nuid=1000(vboxuser) gid=1000(vboxuser) groups=1000(vboxuser),27(sudo),984(docker)\n\nThis confirms arbitrary command execution with the privileges of the user running the CLI.\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nImpact\n\nArbitrary command execution on the developer\u2019s machine\nExecution occurs with the privileges of the user running the CLI\n\nThis can lead to:\n\nFile modification or deletion\nCredential exposure\nSystem compromise depending on user privileges\n\nAn attacker can exploit this by influencing the password input (for example, through social engineering, malicious documentation, or compromised automation scripts).\n\nThe proof-of-concept shows execution under a user belonging to privileged groups such as sudo and docker, which may allow further privilege escalation depending on system configuration.\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nSuggested Fix\n\nAvoid using exec() with user-controlled input.\n\nUse execFile() instead:\n\nconst { execFileSync } = require(\u0027child_process\u0027);\n\nexecFileSync(\u0027node\u0027, [appJsPath, userTask, \u0027admin\u0027, \u0027admin\u0027], {\ninput: response.pw + \u0027\\n\u0027\n});\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nAffected Version\n\nAll current versions of @apostrophecms/cli\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nTested On\n\nUbuntu 22.04\nNode.js v18.19.1\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\n\nCWE\n\nCWE-78 \u2014 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command\n\n\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501\u2501",
"id": "GHSA-hcwq-x9fw-8cfq",
"modified": "2026-06-12T22:01:56Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T16:16:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apostrophecms/apostrophe/security/advisories/GHSA-hcwq-x9fw-8cfq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42853"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apostrophecms/apostrophe"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "@apostrophecms/cli: Command Injection in apos create via Unsanitized Password Input"
}
GHSA-HCXV-FXW3-WQCH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:14 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:14FruityWifi (aka PatatasFritas/PatataWifi) 2.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the io_mode, ap_mode, io_action, io_in_iface, io_in_set, io_in_ip, io_in_mask, io_in_gw, io_out_iface, io_out_set, io_out_mask, io_out_gw, iface, or domain parameter to /www/script/config_iface.php, or the newSSID, hostapd_secure, hostapd_wpa_passphrase, or supplicant_ssid parameter to /www/page_config.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-17317"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-09-21T18:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "FruityWifi (aka PatatasFritas/PatataWifi) 2.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the io_mode, ap_mode, io_action, io_in_iface, io_in_set, io_in_ip, io_in_mask, io_in_gw, io_out_iface, io_out_set, io_out_mask, io_out_gw, iface, or domain parameter to /www/script/config_iface.php, or the newSSID, hostapd_secure, hostapd_wpa_passphrase, or supplicant_ssid parameter to /www/page_config.php.",
"id": "GHSA-hcxv-fxw3-wqch",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:14:05Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:14:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-17317"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PatatasFritas/PatataWifi/issues/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/xtr4nge/FruityWifi/issues/276"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://blog.51cto.com/010bjsoft/2175710"
}
],
"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-HF4M-2399-3JJV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:15 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:15Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user. This affects D3600 before 1.0.0.76, D6000 before 1.0.0.76, and XR500 before 2.3.2.32.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-20711"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-16T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user. This affects D3600 before 1.0.0.76, D6000 before 1.0.0.76, and XR500 before 2.3.2.32.",
"id": "GHSA-hf4m-2399-3jjv",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:15:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:15:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-20711"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.netgear.com/000061217/Security-Advisory-for-Post-Authentication-Command-Injection-on-Some-Routers-and-Gateway-PSV-2018-0336"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-HF72-6M3V-V4JH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-08 21:30 – Updated: 2025-07-08 21:30ColdFusion versions 2025.2, 2023.14, 2021.20 and earlier are affected by an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability that could lead to arbitrary code execution by a high-privileged attacker. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction and scope is changed. The vulnerable component is restricted to internal IP addresses.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49537"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-08T21:15:26Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ColdFusion versions 2025.2, 2023.14, 2021.20 and earlier are affected by an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability that could lead to arbitrary code execution by a high-privileged attacker. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction and scope is changed. The vulnerable component is restricted to internal IP addresses.",
"id": "GHSA-hf72-6m3v-v4jh",
"modified": "2025-07-08T21:30:28Z",
"published": "2025-07-08T21:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49537"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/coldfusion/apsb25-69.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HF79-FWX9-Q3GM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-09 00:33 – Updated: 2023-11-09 00:33Zavio CF7500, CF7300, CF7201, CF7501, CB3211, CB3212, CB5220, CB6231, B8520, B8220, and CD321
IP Cameras
with firmware version M2.1.6.05 has a command injection vulnerability in their implementation of their binaries and handling of network requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-4249"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-121",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-08T23:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Zavio CF7500, CF7300, CF7201, CF7501, CB3211, CB3212, CB5220,\n CB6231, B8520, B8220, and CD321 \n\nIP Cameras \n\nwith firmware version M2.1.6.05 has a \ncommand injection vulnerability in their implementation of their \nbinaries and handling of network requests.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-hf79-fwx9-q3gm",
"modified": "2023-11-09T00:33:57Z",
"published": "2023-11-09T00:33:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4249"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-23-304-03"
}
],
"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-HF9P-2HJC-XPHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-23 06:31 – Updated: 2026-01-23 06:31ALGO 8180 IP Audio Alerter SAC Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of ALGO 8180 IP Audio Alerter devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the SAC module. 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 the device. Was ZDI-CAN-28296.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-0787"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-23T04:16:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ALGO 8180 IP Audio Alerter SAC Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of ALGO 8180 IP Audio Alerter devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the SAC module. 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 the device. Was ZDI-CAN-28296.",
"id": "GHSA-hf9p-2hjc-xphf",
"modified": "2026-01-23T06:31:25Z",
"published": "2026-01-23T06:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0787"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-26-009"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HFCP-477W-3WJW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-27 09:30 – Updated: 2026-03-27 00:31A flaw was found in rubyipmi, a gem used in the Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) component of Red Hat Satellite. An authenticated attacker with host creation or update permissions could exploit this vulnerability by crafting a malicious username for the BMC interface. This could lead to remote code execution (RCE) on the system.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "rubyipmi"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.13.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-0980"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-28T02:45:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-27T08:17:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in rubyipmi, a gem used in the Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) component of Red Hat Satellite. An authenticated attacker with host creation or update permissions could exploit this vulnerability by crafting a malicious username for the BMC interface. This could lead to remote code execution (RCE) on the system.",
"id": "GHSA-hfcp-477w-3wjw",
"modified": "2026-03-27T00:31:20Z",
"published": "2026-02-27T09:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0980"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/logicminds/rubyipmi/commit/252503a7b4dca68388165883b0322024e344a215"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5968"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5970"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5971"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-0980"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2429874"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/logicminds/rubyipmi"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/rubyipmi/CVE-2026-0980.yml"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "rubyipmi is vulnerable to OS Command Injection through malicious usernames"
}
GHSA-HFHW-2R7F-RRR3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:54 – Updated: 2023-03-31 18:30A vulnerability in the Redfish protocol of Cisco Integrated Management Controller (IMC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to inject and execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the affected software. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted authenticated commands to the web-based management interface of the affected software. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to inject and execute arbitrary commands on an affected device with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1885"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-21T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the Redfish protocol of Cisco Integrated Management Controller (IMC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to inject and execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the affected software. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted authenticated commands to the web-based management interface of the affected software. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to inject and execute arbitrary commands on an affected device with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-hfhw-2r7f-rrr3",
"modified": "2023-03-31T18:30:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:54:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1885"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190821-ucs-cimc"
}
],
"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.