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-M936-8RPH-C2W9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-11 12:30 – Updated: 2025-03-11 12:30A vulnerability has been identified in SCALANCE LPE9403 (6GK5998-3GS00-2AC2) (All versions < V4.0). Affected devices do not properly sanitize user input when creating new VXLAN configurations. This could allow an authenticated highly-privileged remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-27392"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-11T10:15:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in SCALANCE LPE9403 (6GK5998-3GS00-2AC2) (All versions \u003c V4.0). Affected devices do not properly sanitize user input when creating new VXLAN configurations.\nThis could allow an authenticated highly-privileged remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the device.",
"id": "GHSA-m936-8rph-c2w9",
"modified": "2025-03-11T12:30:59Z",
"published": "2025-03-11T12:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27392"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-075201.html"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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-M93H-4HW7-5QCM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-10 19:32 – Updated: 2026-07-10 19:32Overview
The Hook Authentication feature in File Browser allows administrators to delegate login verification to an external shell command. User-supplied credentials (username and password) are interpolated into this command string using os.Expand without sanitization. An unauthenticated remote attacker can inject shell metacharacters in the username or password field at the login screen, causing the server to execute arbitrary OS commands before any authentication takes place. This is a critical pre-authentication RCE.
Affected Location
- File:
auth/hook.go - Function:
HookAuth.RunCommand
CVSS v4.0
| Metric | Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Attack Vector (AV) | Network (N) | Exploitable via the login endpoint over HTTP from any network |
| Attack Complexity (AC) | Low (L) | Single crafted HTTP request; no preparation needed |
| Attack Requirements (AT) | None (N) | No race condition or special timing required |
| Privileges Required (PR) | None (N) | No account required — pre-authentication attack |
| User Interaction (UI) | None (N) | Fully automated; no victim action needed |
| Vulnerable System Confidentiality (VC) | High (H) | Full read access to server filesystem and env |
| Vulnerable System Integrity (VI) | High (H) | Arbitrary file write/modification |
| Vulnerable System Availability (VA) | High (H) | Can kill processes, exhaust resources |
| Subsequent System Confidentiality (SC) | None (N) | No direct impact on downstream systems assumed |
| Subsequent System Integrity (SI) | None (N) | — |
| Subsequent System Availability (SA) | None (N) | — |
Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Base Score: 9.3 (Critical)
Note:
PR:Noneis the critical differentiator from vulnerabilities 01 and 02. Because the injection point is the unauthenticated login endpoint, no account or session is required. A single HTTP request to the login API is sufficient to achieve RCE.
CWE
| ID | Name | Role |
|---|---|---|
| CWE-78 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') | Primary — attacker-supplied credentials embedded in shell command string via os.Expand |
| CWE-88 | Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') | Secondary — $USERNAME/$PASSWORD expansion injects additional shell commands |
| CWE-306 | Missing Authentication for Critical Function | Secondary — OS command execution is reachable before any authentication is verified |
Technical Details
HookAuth.RunCommand builds the authentication command and substitutes credential values using os.Expand:
// auth/hook.go
envMapping := func(key string) string {
switch key {
case "USERNAME":
return a.Cred.Username // directly from the HTTP login request body
case "PASSWORD":
return a.Cred.Password // directly from the HTTP login request body
default:
return os.Getenv(key)
}
}
for i, arg := range command {
if i == 0 { continue }
command[i] = os.Expand(arg, envMapping) // no escaping applied
}
os.Expand performs plain text substitution. There is no escaping, quoting, or validation of the credential values before they are embedded into the command string.
If an admin has configured the hook authentication command as:
sh -c "test $USERNAME = 'admin'"
...and an attacker submits the username ; id # at the login screen, the expanded command becomes:
sh -c "test ; id # = 'admin'"
The ; terminates the test expression and the shell executes id. The # comments out the remainder, preventing a syntax error. The attacker's command runs with the privileges of the File Browser process — without needing a valid account or password.
Attack Scenario / Reproduction Steps
- Admin enables Hook Authentication and sets the command to:
sh -c "test $USERNAME = 'admin'" - An unauthenticated attacker sends a login request (e.g., via
curlor the web UI) with: - Username:
; id # - Password: (any value)
- The server executes:
sh sh -c "test ; id # = 'admin'" - The
idcommand runs on the server, confirming pre-authentication RCE.
No account is needed. The attacker does not need to know any valid credentials. A single request is sufficient.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote attacker can execute arbitrary OS commands on the server under the privilege level of the File Browser process. This is the most severe class of vulnerability in this codebase:
- No authentication required — exposed to the entire internet if the service is public-facing.
- Single request — no setup, no enumeration, no prior foothold.
- Full server compromise: data exfiltration, persistent backdoor installation, lateral movement to internal networks.
Any internet-facing File Browser instance with Hook Authentication enabled is fully compromised by a single malformed login attempt.
Proof of Concept
package auth
import (
"os"
"strings"
"testing"
)
func TestPoC_AuthHookInjection(t *testing.T) {
// Simulate the admin-configured hook authentication command.
// This represents a realistic configuration: verify the username via a shell expression.
a := &HookAuth{
Command: "sh -c $USERNAME",
Cred: hookCred{
// Attacker-supplied username from the login form.
// The password is irrelevant.
Username: "id ; echo injected",
Password: "anything",
},
}
// Simulate the RunCommand logic in auth/hook.go
command := strings.Split(a.Command, " ")
envMapping := func(key string) string {
if key == "USERNAME" {
return a.Cred.Username
}
return os.Getenv(key)
}
for i, arg := range command {
if i == 0 {
continue
}
// os.Expand substitutes $USERNAME with the attacker's input.
// The result is treated as a shell script — no escaping is applied.
command[i] = os.Expand(arg, envMapping)
}
// The shell will execute: sh -c "id ; echo injected"
expectedArg := "id ; echo injected"
if command[2] != expectedArg {
t.Errorf("Expected command argument %q, got %q", expectedArg, command[2])
}
t.Logf("Confirmed: malicious username was injected as a shell script. Executing: %v", command)
}
Remediation
Pass credentials exclusively as environment variables, not as shell string substitutions. This feature is undocumented, so removing it should not cause issues.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.63.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.63.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54088"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306",
"CWE-78",
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-10T19:32:32Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-25T19:16:40Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Overview\n\nThe Hook Authentication feature in File Browser allows administrators to delegate login verification to an external shell command. User-supplied credentials (username and password) are interpolated into this command string using `os.Expand` without sanitization. An **unauthenticated remote attacker** can inject shell metacharacters in the username or password field at the login screen, causing the server to execute arbitrary OS commands before any authentication takes place. This is a **critical pre-authentication RCE**.\n\n## Affected Location\n\n- **File:** `auth/hook.go`\n- **Function:** `HookAuth.RunCommand`\n\n## CVSS v4.0\n\n| Metric | Value | Rationale |\n|---|---|---|\n| Attack Vector (AV) | Network (N) | Exploitable via the login endpoint over HTTP from any network |\n| Attack Complexity (AC) | Low (L) | Single crafted HTTP request; no preparation needed |\n| Attack Requirements (AT) | None (N) | No race condition or special timing required |\n| Privileges Required (PR) | **None (N)** | **No account required \u2014 pre-authentication attack** |\n| User Interaction (UI) | None (N) | Fully automated; no victim action needed |\n| Vulnerable System Confidentiality (VC) | High (H) | Full read access to server filesystem and env |\n| Vulnerable System Integrity (VI) | High (H) | Arbitrary file write/modification |\n| Vulnerable System Availability (VA) | High (H) | Can kill processes, exhaust resources |\n| Subsequent System Confidentiality (SC) | None (N) | No direct impact on downstream systems assumed |\n| Subsequent System Integrity (SI) | None (N) | \u2014 |\n| Subsequent System Availability (SA) | None (N) | \u2014 |\n\n**Vector String:** `CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N`\n**Base Score: 9.3 (Critical)**\n\n\u003e **Note:** `PR:None` is the critical differentiator from vulnerabilities 01 and 02. Because the injection point is the unauthenticated login endpoint, no account or session is required. A single HTTP request to the login API is sufficient to achieve RCE.\n\n## CWE\n\n| ID | Name | Role |\n|---|---|---|\n| [CWE-78](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html) | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) | Primary \u2014 attacker-supplied credentials embedded in shell command string via `os.Expand` |\n| [CWE-88](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/88.html) | Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command (\u0027Argument Injection\u0027) | Secondary \u2014 `$USERNAME`/`$PASSWORD` expansion injects additional shell commands |\n| [CWE-306](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/306.html) | Missing Authentication for Critical Function | Secondary \u2014 OS command execution is reachable before any authentication is verified |\n\n## Technical Details\n\n`HookAuth.RunCommand` builds the authentication command and substitutes credential values using `os.Expand`:\n\n```go\n// auth/hook.go\nenvMapping := func(key string) string {\n switch key {\n case \"USERNAME\":\n return a.Cred.Username // directly from the HTTP login request body\n case \"PASSWORD\":\n return a.Cred.Password // directly from the HTTP login request body\n default:\n return os.Getenv(key)\n }\n}\n\nfor i, arg := range command {\n if i == 0 { continue }\n command[i] = os.Expand(arg, envMapping) // no escaping applied\n}\n```\n\n`os.Expand` performs plain text substitution. There is no escaping, quoting, or validation of the credential values before they are embedded into the command string.\n\nIf an admin has configured the hook authentication command as:\n\n```\nsh -c \"test $USERNAME = \u0027admin\u0027\"\n```\n\n...and an attacker submits the username `; id #` at the login screen, the expanded command becomes:\n\n```sh\nsh -c \"test ; id # = \u0027admin\u0027\"\n```\n\nThe `;` terminates the `test` expression and the shell executes `id`. The `#` comments out the remainder, preventing a syntax error. The attacker\u0027s command runs with the privileges of the File Browser process \u2014 **without needing a valid account or password**.\n\n## Attack Scenario / Reproduction Steps\n\n1. Admin enables Hook Authentication and sets the command to:\n ```\n sh -c \"test $USERNAME = \u0027admin\u0027\"\n ```\n2. An unauthenticated attacker sends a login request (e.g., via `curl` or the web UI) with:\n - **Username:** `; id #`\n - **Password:** (any value)\n3. The server executes:\n ```sh\n sh -c \"test ; id # = \u0027admin\u0027\"\n ```\n4. The `id` command runs on the server, confirming pre-authentication RCE.\n\nNo account is needed. The attacker does not need to know any valid credentials. A single request is sufficient.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn unauthenticated remote attacker can execute arbitrary OS commands on the server under the privilege level of the File Browser process. This is the most severe class of vulnerability in this codebase:\n\n- **No authentication required** \u2014 exposed to the entire internet if the service is public-facing.\n- **Single request** \u2014 no setup, no enumeration, no prior foothold.\n- Full server compromise: data exfiltration, persistent backdoor installation, lateral movement to internal networks.\n\nAny internet-facing File Browser instance with Hook Authentication enabled is fully compromised by a single malformed login attempt.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```go\npackage auth\n\nimport (\n \"os\"\n \"strings\"\n \"testing\"\n)\n\nfunc TestPoC_AuthHookInjection(t *testing.T) {\n // Simulate the admin-configured hook authentication command.\n // This represents a realistic configuration: verify the username via a shell expression.\n a := \u0026HookAuth{\n Command: \"sh -c $USERNAME\",\n Cred: hookCred{\n // Attacker-supplied username from the login form.\n // The password is irrelevant.\n Username: \"id ; echo injected\",\n Password: \"anything\",\n },\n }\n\n // Simulate the RunCommand logic in auth/hook.go\n command := strings.Split(a.Command, \" \")\n\n envMapping := func(key string) string {\n if key == \"USERNAME\" {\n return a.Cred.Username\n }\n return os.Getenv(key)\n }\n\n for i, arg := range command {\n if i == 0 {\n continue\n }\n // os.Expand substitutes $USERNAME with the attacker\u0027s input.\n // The result is treated as a shell script \u2014 no escaping is applied.\n command[i] = os.Expand(arg, envMapping)\n }\n\n // The shell will execute: sh -c \"id ; echo injected\"\n expectedArg := \"id ; echo injected\"\n if command[2] != expectedArg {\n t.Errorf(\"Expected command argument %q, got %q\", expectedArg, command[2])\n }\n\n t.Logf(\"Confirmed: malicious username was injected as a shell script. Executing: %v\", command)\n}\n```\n\n## Remediation\n\nPass credentials exclusively as environment variables, not as shell string substitutions. This feature is undocumented, so removing it should not cause issues.",
"id": "GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm",
"modified": "2026-07-10T19:32:32Z",
"published": "2026-07-10T19:32:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/security/advisories/GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54088"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "File Browser: Command Injection via Authentication Hook Shell Substitution (Pre-Authentication RCE)"
}
GHSA-M973-3R23-2C9H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:36 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:36iCMS 7 attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via shell metacharacters in the DB_PREFIX parameter to install/install.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-19142"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-12-10T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "iCMS 7 attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via shell metacharacters in the DB_PREFIX parameter to install/install.php.",
"id": "GHSA-m973-3r23-2c9h",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:36:01Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:36:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-19142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/idreamsoft/iCMS/issues/65"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-M97R-6QF4-PP4Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-03 03:30 – Updated: 2024-05-03 03:30D-Link DAP-1325 HNAP SetHostIPv6StaticSettings StaticAddress Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of D-Link DAP-1325 routers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the handling of a request parameter provided to the HNAP1 SOAP endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-18816.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-41196"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-03T03:15:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "D-Link DAP-1325 HNAP SetHostIPv6StaticSettings StaticAddress Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of D-Link DAP-1325 routers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the handling of a request parameter provided to the HNAP1 SOAP endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-18816.",
"id": "GHSA-m97r-6qf4-pp4q",
"modified": "2024-05-03T03:30:59Z",
"published": "2024-05-03T03:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-41196"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportannouncement.us.dlink.com/announcement/publication.aspx?name=SAP10351"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-23-1304"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M98G-PGX5-R687
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:24 – Updated: 2023-01-24 21:30This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CentOS Web Panel cwp-e17.0.9.8.923. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within ajax_crons.php. When parsing the user parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9716.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15429"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-07-28T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CentOS Web Panel cwp-e17.0.9.8.923. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within ajax_crons.php. When parsing the user parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-9716.",
"id": "GHSA-m98g-pgx5-r687",
"modified": "2023-01-24T21:30:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:24:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15429"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-20-746"
}
],
"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-M98M-C6V8-V5RM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-06 15:32 – Updated: 2024-10-06 15:32Elsight – CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45252"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-06T13:15:16Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Elsight \u2013 CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"id": "GHSA-m98m-c6v8-v5rm",
"modified": "2024-10-06T15:32:28Z",
"published": "2024-10-06T15:32:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45252"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/faq/cve_advisories"
}
],
"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-M9G5-85VV-3CRG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 21:30 – Updated: 2026-06-16 21:31Tenda 5G03 V05.03.02.04 (Version 1.0) is vulnerable to Command injection in the function action_unlock_sim via the pin parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-38060"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-15T20:16:26Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda 5G03 V05.03.02.04 (Version 1.0) is vulnerable to Command injection in the function action_unlock_sim via the pin parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-m9g5-85vv-3crg",
"modified": "2026-06-16T21:31:54Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T21:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-38060"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sezangel/IOT-vul/tree/main/Tenda/5G03/action_unlock_sim"
}
],
"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-M9G7-RGFC-JCM7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-31 22:35 – Updated: 2026-03-31 22:35Summary
The latest version of baserCMS (basercms-5.2.2) contains an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in its update functionality. Due to this issue, an authenticated user with administrator privileges in baserCMS can execute arbitrary OS commands on the server with the privileges of the user account running baserCMS.
Details
Please refer to the attached materials. OSコマンドインジェクション（baserCMSのアップデート機能）.pdf
Impact
An authenticated user with administrator privileges in baserCMS can execute OS commands on the server with the privileges of the user account running baserCMS.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.2.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "baserproject/basercms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.2.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30877"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-31T22:35:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T01:16:35Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe latest version of baserCMS (basercms-5.2.2) contains an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in its update functionality.\nDue to this issue, an authenticated user with administrator privileges in baserCMS can execute arbitrary OS commands on the server with the privileges of the user account running baserCMS.\n\n### Details\nPlease refer to the attached materials.\n[OS\u30b3\u30de\u30f3\u30c9\u30a4\u30f3\u30b8\u30a7\u30af\u30b7\u30e7\u30f3\uff08baserCMS\u306e\u30a2\u30c3\u30d7\u30c7\u30fc\u30c8\u6a5f\u80fd\uff09.pdf](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/25468689/OS.baserCMS.pdf)\n\n\n\n### Impact\nAn authenticated user with administrator privileges in baserCMS can execute OS commands on the server with the privileges of the user account running baserCMS.",
"id": "GHSA-m9g7-rgfc-jcm7",
"modified": "2026-03-31T22:35:47Z",
"published": "2026-03-31T22:35:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/baserproject/basercms/security/advisories/GHSA-m9g7-rgfc-jcm7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30877"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://basercms.net/security/JVN_20837860"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/baserproject/basercms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/baserproject/basercms/releases/tag/5.2.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "baserCMS Update Functionality Vulnerable to OS Command Injection"
}
GHSA-M9J6-MHRG-J5GG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-21 09:30 – Updated: 2023-11-21 09:30A vulnerability in the web-based management allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to inject arbitrary system commands and gain full system control. Those commands are executed with root privileges. The vulnerability is located in the user request handling of the web-based management.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-4149"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-21T07:15:10Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the web-based management allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to inject arbitrary system commands and gain full system control. Those commands are executed with root privileges. The vulnerability is located in the user request handling of the web-based management.",
"id": "GHSA-m9j6-mhrg-j5gg",
"modified": "2023-11-21T09:30:23Z",
"published": "2023-11-21T09:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4149"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.vde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2023-037"
}
],
"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-M9R6-6WHX-5PGR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-01 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-06 00:01totolink a3100r V5.9c.4577 is vulnerable to os command injection. The backend of a page is executing the "ping" command, and the input field does not adequately filter special symbols. This can lead to command injection attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-46007"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-30T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "totolink a3100r V5.9c.4577 is vulnerable to os command injection. The backend of a page is executing the \"ping\" command, and the input field does not adequately filter special symbols. This can lead to command injection attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-m9r6-6whx-5pgr",
"modified": "2022-04-06T00:01:43Z",
"published": "2022-04-01T00:00:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-46007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackmd.io/t_nRWxS2Q2O7GV2E5BhQMg"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://a3100r.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://totolink.com"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.