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.
8241 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-XV34-VPCM-23P2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-07 18:30 – Updated: 2025-05-07 21:31A vulnerability in SMA100 allows a remote authenticated attacker with SSLVPN admin privileges can with admin privileges can inject shell command arguments to upload a file on the appliance.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-32821"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-07T18:15:42Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in SMA100 allows a remote authenticated attacker with SSLVPN admin privileges can with admin privileges can inject shell command arguments to upload a file on the appliance.",
"id": "GHSA-xv34-vpcm-23p2",
"modified": "2025-05-07T21:31:45Z",
"published": "2025-05-07T18:30:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-32821"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2025-0011"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XV4Q-RVQG-WPQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 18:31 – Updated: 2026-07-01 18:31Guardian language-system passes the id GET parameter directly into a PHP exec() call in text_to_subtitles.php (line 19) without sanitization: exec(\"php jobs/text_to_subtitles.php \".$login_session.\" \".$_GET['id'].\" ...\"). No authentication is required. An unauthenticated remote attacker can append shell metacharacters to execute arbitrary OS commands on the server.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34117"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-01T17:16:35Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Guardian language-system passes the id GET parameter directly into a PHP exec() call in text_to_subtitles.php (line 19) without sanitization: exec(\\\"php jobs/text_to_subtitles.php \\\".$login_session.\\\" \\\".$_GET[\u0027id\u0027].\\\" ...\\\"). No authentication is required. An unauthenticated remote attacker can append shell metacharacters to execute arbitrary OS commands on the server.",
"id": "GHSA-xv4q-rvqg-wpq7",
"modified": "2026-07-01T18:31:54Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T18:31:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34117"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/cyberinforepo/d5b2771d82e1b31b8fc1c33052e08dad"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/guardian-language-system-unauthenticated-os-command-injection-via-id-parameter-in-text-to-subtitles-php"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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/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-XV5P-FJW5-VRJ6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-25 20:39 – Updated: 2025-11-27 09:00Summary
The Fugue framework implements an RPC server system for distributed computing operations. In the core functionality of the RPC server implementation, I found that the _decode() function in fugue/rpc/flask.py directly uses cloudpickle.loads() to deserialize data without any sanitization. This creates a remote code execution vulnerability when malicious pickle data is processed by the RPC server.The vulnerability exists in the RPC communication mechanism where the client can send arbitrary serialized Python objects that will be deserialized on the server side, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code on the victim's machine.
Details
_decode() function in fugue/rpc/flask.py directly uses cloudpickle.loads() to deserialize data without any sanitization.
PoC
-
Step1: The victim user starts an RPC server binding to open network using the Fugue framework. Here, I use the official RPC server code to initialize the server.
-
Step2: The attacker modifies the _encode() function in fugue/rpc/flask.py to inject malicious pickle data:
In this example, attacker modifies _encode to let the victim execute command “ls -l”
- Step 3: The attacker then uses the RPC client to send the malicious request
Fugue gives a demo video and the PoC in the attachment, along with modified flask.py. When users reproduce this issue, in the server side (as an victim), users can run python rpc_server.py. In the client side (as an attacker), users can first replace fugue/rpc/flask.py in pip site-packages with provided flask.py in the attachment and then run rpc_client.py.
Impact
Remote code execution in the victim's machine. Once the victim starts the RPCServer with network binding (especially 0.0.0.0), an attacker on the network can gain arbitrary code execution by connecting to the RPCServer and sending crafted pickle payloads. This vulnerability allows for:
- Complete system compromise
- Data exfiltration
- Lateral movement within the network
- Denial of service attacks
- Installation of persistent backdoors
Mitigation
- Replace unsafe deserialization: Replace
pickle.loads()with safer alternatives such as: - JSON serialization for simple data structures
- Protocol Buffers or MessagePack for complex data
-
If pickle must be used, implement a custom
Unpicklerwith a restrictedfind_class()method that only allows whitelisted classes -
Network security:
- If the service is intended for internal use only, bind to localhost (
127.0.0.1) instead of0.0.0.0 -
Implement authentication and authorization mechanisms
-
Security warnings: When starting the service on public interfaces, display clear security warnings to inform users about the risks.
Attachment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8bBBp7dnWoT_WHBtdB0Fts4NRUIfdWi/view?usp=sharing
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "fugue"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.9.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62703"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-502",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-11-25T20:39:15Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-25T22:15:47Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe Fugue framework implements an RPC server system for distributed computing operations. In the core\u00a0functionality of the RPC server implementation, I\u00a0found that\u00a0the\u00a0_decode()\u00a0function in\u00a0fugue/rpc/flask.py\u00a0directly uses\u00a0cloudpickle.loads()\u00a0to deserialize data\u00a0without any sanitization. This creates a remote code execution vulnerability when malicious pickle data is processed by the RPC\u00a0server.The vulnerability exists in the RPC communication mechanism where the client can\u00a0send arbitrary serialized Python objects that will be deserialized on the server\u00a0side, allowing\u00a0attackers to\u00a0execute arbitrary code\u00a0on the victim\u0027s machine.\n\n### Details\n_decode()\u00a0function in\u00a0fugue/rpc/flask.py directly uses\u00a0cloudpickle.loads()\u00a0to deserialize data\u00a0without any sanitization.\n\n### PoC\n* Step1:\nThe victim user starts an RPC\u00a0server binding to open network using\u00a0the Fugue framework. Here, I use the\u00a0official RPC\u00a0server code\u00a0to initialize\u00a0the server. \n\n* Step2:\nThe attacker modifies\u00a0the\u00a0_encode()\u00a0function\u00a0in\u00a0fugue/rpc/flask.py\u00a0to\u00a0inject malicious pickle data:\n\n\u003cimg width=\"740\" height=\"260\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6064516b-e1a6-45fa-a91c-8e276bc4a106\" /\u003e\n\nIn this example, attacker modifies _encode to let the victim execute command \u201cls -l\u201d\n\n* Step 3:\nThe attacker then\u00a0uses the RPC client to send\u00a0the malicious\u00a0request\n\nFugue gives a demo video and the PoC in the attachment, along with modified flask.py. When users reproduce this issue, in the server side (as an victim), users can run python rpc_server.py. In the client side (as an attacker), users can first replace fugue/rpc/flask.py in pip site-packages with provided flask.py in the attachment and then run rpc_client.py.\n\n\n### Impact\nRemote code execution in the victim\u0027s machine. Once the victim starts\u00a0the RPCServer with network binding (especially\u00a00.0.0.0), an attacker on\u00a0the network\u00a0can gain arbitrary code execution by connecting to the RPCServer\u00a0and sending crafted pickle payloads. This vulnerability allows\u00a0for:\n\n- Complete system compromise\n- Data exfiltration\n- Lateral movement within the network\n- Denial of service attacks\n- Installation of persistent backdoors\n\n### Mitigation\n1. **Replace unsafe deserialization**: Replace `pickle.loads()` with safer alternatives such as:\n - JSON serialization for simple data structures\n - Protocol Buffers or MessagePack for complex data\n - If pickle must be used, implement a custom `Unpickler` with a restricted `find_class()` method that only allows whitelisted classes\n\n2. **Network security**: \n - If the service is intended for internal use only, bind to localhost (`127.0.0.1`) instead of `0.0.0.0`\n - Implement authentication and authorization mechanisms\n\n3. **Security warnings**: When starting the service on public interfaces, display clear security warnings to inform users about the risks.\n\nAttachment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8bBBp7dnWoT_WHBtdB0Fts4NRUIfdWi/view?usp=sharing",
"id": "GHSA-xv5p-fjw5-vrj6",
"modified": "2025-11-27T09:00:39Z",
"published": "2025-11-25T20:39:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fugue-project/fugue/security/advisories/GHSA-xv5p-fjw5-vrj6"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62703"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fugue-project/fugue/commit/6f25326779fd1f528198098d6287c5a863176fc0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8bBBp7dnWoT_WHBtdB0Fts4NRUIfdWi/view?usp=sharing"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/fugue-project/fugue"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Fugue is Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution\u00a0by Pickle Deserialization via FlaskRPCServer"
}
GHSA-XV7X-V825-68C4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-22 18:32 – Updated: 2025-04-22 21:30TOTOLINK EX1200T V4.1.2cu.5232_B20210713 was found to contain a pre-auth remote command execution vulnerability in the setUpgradeFW function through the FileName parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-28039"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-22T18:15:59Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK EX1200T V4.1.2cu.5232_B20210713 was found to contain a pre-auth remote command execution vulnerability in the setUpgradeFW function through the FileName parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-xv7x-v825-68c4",
"modified": "2025-04-22T21:30:43Z",
"published": "2025-04-22T18:32:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-28039"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://locrian-lightning-dc7.notion.site/RCE2-1ad8e5e2b1a280fbb0cacc7e758e7299"
}
],
"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-XV86-GR62-VCJ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-02 09:30 – Updated: 2025-04-02 09:30This vulnerability involves command injection in tcpdump within Moxa products, enabling an authenticated attacker with console access to exploit improper input validation to inject and execute systems commands. Successful exploitation could result in privilege escalation, allowing the attacker to gain root shell access and maintain persistent control over the device, potentially disrupting network services and affecting the availability of downstream systems that rely on its connectivity.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-0676"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-02T07:15:41Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This vulnerability involves command injection in tcpdump within Moxa products, enabling an authenticated attacker with console access to exploit improper input validation to inject and execute systems commands. Successful exploitation could result in privilege escalation, allowing the attacker to gain root shell access and maintain persistent control over the device, potentially disrupting network services and affecting the availability of downstream systems that rely on its connectivity.",
"id": "GHSA-xv86-gr62-vcj7",
"modified": "2025-04-02T09:30:33Z",
"published": "2025-04-02T09:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0676"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.moxa.com/en/support/product-support/security-advisory/mpsa-259491-cve-2025-0676-command-injection-leading-to-privilege-escalation"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"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-XV96-8M2J-GMHM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-28 03:30 – Updated: 2025-03-28 03:30Dell Unity, version(s) 5.4 and prior, contain(s) an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Command execution and Elevation of privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24380"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-28T03:15:17Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Dell Unity, version(s) 5.4 and prior, contain(s) an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Command execution and Elevation of privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-xv96-8m2j-gmhm",
"modified": "2025-03-28T03:30:25Z",
"published": "2025-03-28T03:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24380"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000300090/dsa-2025-116-security-update-for-dell-unity-dell-unityvsa-and-dell-unity-xt-security-update-for-multiple-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XV9C-X9PP-8XWG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-28 12:30 – Updated: 2024-11-09 00:30An authorized RCE vulnerability exists in the DrayTek Vigor2960 router version 1.4.4, where an attacker can place a malicious command into the table parameter of the doPPPoE function in the cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi route, and finally the command is executed by the system function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48074"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-28T12:15:15Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An authorized RCE vulnerability exists in the DrayTek Vigor2960 router version 1.4.4, where an attacker can place a malicious command into the table parameter of the doPPPoE function in the cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi route, and finally the command is executed by the system function.",
"id": "GHSA-xv9c-x9pp-8xwg",
"modified": "2024-11-09T00:30:42Z",
"published": "2024-10-28T12:30:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48074"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/Giles-one/6425e97dcd1ec97a722a1e20da25fad7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Giles-one/Vigor2960Crack"
}
],
"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-XV9F-728H-9JGV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-15 12:31 – Updated: 2025-09-15 21:07The killProcesses mutation in Chaos Controller Manager is vulnerable to OS command injection. In conjunction with CVE-2025-59358, this allows unauthenticated in-cluster attackers to perform remote code execution across the cluster.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/chaos-mesh/chaos-mesh"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.7.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59360"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-15T21:07:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-15T12:15:33Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The killProcesses mutation in Chaos Controller Manager is vulnerable to OS command injection. In conjunction with CVE-2025-59358, this allows unauthenticated in-cluster attackers to perform remote code execution across the cluster.",
"id": "GHSA-xv9f-728h-9jgv",
"modified": "2025-09-15T21:07:42Z",
"published": "2025-09-15T12:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59360"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chaos-mesh/chaos-mesh/pull/4702"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chaos-mesh/chaos-mesh/commit/67281c36f8068bf103149318cd0a466417213a28"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/chaos-mesh/chaos-mesh"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jfrog.com/blog/chaotic-deputy-critical-vulnerabilities-in-chaos-mesh-lead-to-kubernetes-cluster-takeover"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Chaos Controller Manager is vulnerable to OS command injection"
}
GHSA-XV9X-VWXF-XX9X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-27 21:31 – Updated: 2024-08-27 21:31A vulnerability was found in D-Link DNS-120, DNR-202L, DNS-315L, DNS-320, DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, DNS-321, DNR-322L, DNS-323, DNS-325, DNS-326, DNS-327L, DNR-326, DNS-340L, DNS-343, DNS-345, DNS-726-4, DNS-1100-4, DNS-1200-05 and DNS-1550-04 up to 20240814. It has been declared as critical. This vulnerability affects the function cgi_FMT_Std2R1_DiskMGR of the file /cgi-bin/hd_config.cgi. The manipulation of the argument f_newly_dev leads to command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: Vendor was contacted early and confirmed that the product is end-of-life. It should be retired and replaced.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-8211"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-27T19:15:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in D-Link DNS-120, DNR-202L, DNS-315L, DNS-320, DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, DNS-321, DNR-322L, DNS-323, DNS-325, DNS-326, DNS-327L, DNR-326, DNS-340L, DNS-343, DNS-345, DNS-726-4, DNS-1100-4, DNS-1200-05 and DNS-1550-04 up to 20240814. It has been declared as critical. This vulnerability affects the function cgi_FMT_Std2R1_DiskMGR of the file /cgi-bin/hd_config.cgi. The manipulation of the argument f_newly_dev leads to command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: Vendor was contacted early and confirmed that the product is end-of-life. It should be retired and replaced.",
"id": "GHSA-xv9x-vwxf-xx9x",
"modified": "2024-08-27T21:31:14Z",
"published": "2024-08-27T21:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-8211"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/BuaaIOTTeam/Iot_Dlink_NAS/blob/main/DNS_cgi_FMT_Std2R1_DiskMGR.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportannouncement.us.dlink.com/security/publication.aspx?name=SAP10383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.275920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.275920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.397275"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dlink.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-XVF8-4RMQ-W4C4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-03 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-06 00:00This affects all versions of package s3-kilatstorage.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-28424"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-02T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "This affects all versions of package s3-kilatstorage.",
"id": "GHSA-xvf8-4rmq-w4c4",
"modified": "2022-08-06T00:00:47Z",
"published": "2022-08-03T00:00:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-28424"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-S3KILATSTORAGE-1050396"
}
],
"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.