CWE-77
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
5386 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-4M48-VRCX-46F2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-05 15:32 – Updated: 2024-07-08 18:31An issue was discovered in SeaCMS <=12.9 which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via admin_ping.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39028"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-05T14:15:03Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in SeaCMS \u003c=12.9 which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via admin_ping.php.",
"id": "GHSA-4m48-vrcx-46f2",
"modified": "2024-07-08T18:31:16Z",
"published": "2024-07-05T15:32:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39028"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pysnow1/vul_discovery/blob/main/SeaCMS/SeaCMS%20v12.9%20admin_ping.php%20RCE.md"
}
],
"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-4M78-5JCJ-9HXX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:18 – Updated: 2022-10-24 19:00Multiple vulnerabilities in the CLI of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-34756"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-27T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in the CLI of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.",
"id": "GHSA-4m78-5jcj-9hxx",
"modified": "2022-10-24T19:00:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:18:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34756"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ftd-cmdinject-FmzsLN8"
}
],
"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-4M8P-9JFQ-W3FJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-12 00:31 – Updated: 2026-03-12 00:31A weakness has been identified in OpenAkita up to 1.24.3. This impacts the function run of the file src/openakita/tools/shell.py of the component Chat API Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument Message can lead to os command injection. The attack is restricted to local execution. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3964"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-11T23:16:01Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A weakness has been identified in OpenAkita up to 1.24.3. This impacts the function run of the file src/openakita/tools/shell.py of the component Chat API Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument Message can lead to os command injection. The attack is restricted to local execution. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-4m8p-9jfq-w3fj",
"modified": "2026-03-12T00:31:17Z",
"published": "2026-03-12T00:31:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3964"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.350393"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.350393"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.768692"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.notion.so/OpenAkita-Local-Privilege-Escalation-via-Arbitrary-Command-Execution-314ea92a3c418075b1acd98f493860e2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-4MC2-JJ65-M3WF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-01 09:30 – Updated: 2023-03-04 06:30Authenticated command injection vulnerabilities exist in the ArubaOS command line interface. Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities result in the ability to execute arbitrary commands as a privileged user on the underlying operating system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22768"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-01T08:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Authenticated command injection vulnerabilities exist in the ArubaOS command line interface. Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities result in the ability to execute arbitrary commands as a privileged user on the underlying operating system.",
"id": "GHSA-4mc2-jj65-m3wf",
"modified": "2023-03-04T06:30:22Z",
"published": "2023-03-01T09:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22768"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2023-002.txt"
}
],
"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-4MCM-J783-V6P8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:02 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:02Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of certain Cisco Small Business 100, 300, and 500 Series Wireless Access Points could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to perform command injection attacks against an affected device. These vulnerabilities are due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending crafted HTTP requests to the web-based management interface of an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the device. To exploit these vulnerabilities, the attacker must have valid administrative credentials for the device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1555"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-22T07:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of certain Cisco Small Business 100, 300, and 500 Series Wireless Access Points could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to perform command injection attacks against an affected device. These vulnerabilities are due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending crafted HTTP requests to the web-based management interface of an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the device. To exploit these vulnerabilities, the attacker must have valid administrative credentials for the device.",
"id": "GHSA-4mcm-j783-v6p8",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:02:59Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:02:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1555"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-sb-wap-inject-Mp9FSdG"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4MF4-J3M9-H786
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-21 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-22 00:00Vulnerabilities in the ClearPass Policy Manager web-based management interface allow remote authenticated users to run arbitrary commands on the underlying host. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root on the underlying operating system leading to complete system compromise in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): 6.10.x: 6.10.6 and below; 6.9.x: 6.9.11 and below. Aruba has released upgrades for Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager that address these security vulnerabilities.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-37878"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-20T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Vulnerabilities in the ClearPass Policy Manager web-based management interface allow remote authenticated users to run arbitrary commands on the underlying host. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root on the underlying operating system leading to complete system compromise in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): 6.10.x: 6.10.6 and below; 6.9.x: 6.9.11 and below. Aruba has released upgrades for Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager that address these security vulnerabilities.",
"id": "GHSA-4mf4-j3m9-h786",
"modified": "2022-09-22T00:00:21Z",
"published": "2022-09-21T00:00:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-37878"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2022-013.txt"
}
],
"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-4MGH-XJF3-7388
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-19 21:30 – Updated: 2026-03-19 21:30Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in Microsoft Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-26136"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-19T21:17:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command (\u0027command injection\u0027) in Microsoft Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-4mgh-xjf3-7388",
"modified": "2026-03-19T21:30:24Z",
"published": "2026-03-19T21:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-26136"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-26136"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4MHR-7J52-2GQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:38 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:38The GMS ViewPoint (GMSVP) web application in Dell SonicWALL GMS, Analyzer, and UMA EM5000 7.2, 8.0, and 8.1 before Hotfix 168056 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via vectors related to configuration input.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-2396"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-02-17T15:59:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The GMS ViewPoint (GMSVP) web application in Dell SonicWALL GMS, Analyzer, and UMA EM5000 7.2, 8.0, and 8.1 before Hotfix 168056 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via vectors related to configuration input.",
"id": "GHSA-4mhr-7j52-2gq7",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:38:49Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:38:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-2396"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.software.dell.com/product-notification/185943"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1035015"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-16-164"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4P62-HQP5-G644
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-04 21:00 – Updated: 2026-06-04 21:00Summary
The log_file_name parameter in the stata_do API and CLI is directly interpolated into a Stata command string without sanitization. The security guard (GuardValidator) only scans the do-file content but does not validate this parameter. An attacker can inject arbitrary Stata commands (including shell, python, erase, etc.) by crafting a malicious log_file_name containing quotes, newlines, or Stata command separators.
Details
In src/stata_mcp/stata/stata_do/do.py, both _execute_unix_like and _execute_windows construct a Stata command string using Python f-strings:
commands = f"""
capture log close
{self.generate_log_command(log_file, is_replace)}
...
do "{dofile_path}"
...
"""
The generate_log_command method returns:
log_cmd = f'log using "{log_file.as_posix()}", {replace_clause} {log_type} name({log_type}_log)'
Where log_file is constructed from user-supplied log_name:
def generate_log_file(self, log_name: str, extension='log'):
return self.log_file_path / f"{log_name}.{extension}"
The log_name parameter comes directly from user input (via MCP tool stata_do or CLI stata-mcp tool do) without any validation. Since the path is embedded inside double quotes in a Stata command string, an attacker can break out of the string context and inject arbitrary commands.
Additionally, generate_log_file does not prevent path traversal via log_name, allowing arbitrary file write outside the intended log directory.
Proof of Concept
When calling stata_do via MCP tool with:
{
"dofile_path": "test.do",
"log_file_name": "'; shell echo pwned > /tmp/pwned.txt; '"
}
The generated Stata commands become:
log using "<log_dir>/'; shell echo pwned > /tmp/pwned.txt; '.log", replace text name(text_log)
Stata interprets this as multiple commands, with shell echo pwned > /tmp/pwned.txt; executed as an arbitrary shell command.
Impact
- Remote Code Execution via
shellcommand injection - Arbitrary file write/overwrite via path traversal in
log_name - Complete bypass of the security guard, as the guard only validates do-file content, not wrapper parameters
Remediation / Fix
- Apply strict allowlist validation to
log_name(only alphanumeric, underscore, dot, hyphen; max 128 chars) - Resolve and verify the constructed log path remains within the intended log directory
- Consider generating safe internal filenames (e.g., UUIDs) instead of accepting user-defined log names for command construction
- Apply similar sanitization to
dofile_pathbefore embedding it into Stata command strings
References
- Issue: #74
- Fix commit: https://github.com/SepineTam/stata-mcp/commit/e6f945941ae0c7cf5e74a428e0b3dc82b396382f
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "stata-mcp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.17.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-47708"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-04T21:00:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe `log_file_name` parameter in the `stata_do` API and CLI is directly interpolated into a Stata command string without sanitization. The security guard (`GuardValidator`) only scans the do-file content but does not validate this parameter. An attacker can inject arbitrary Stata commands (including `shell`, `python`, `erase`, etc.) by crafting a malicious `log_file_name` containing quotes, newlines, or Stata command separators.\n\n### Details\n\nIn `src/stata_mcp/stata/stata_do/do.py`, both `_execute_unix_like` and `_execute_windows` construct a Stata command string using Python f-strings:\n\n```python\ncommands = f\"\"\"\ncapture log close\n{self.generate_log_command(log_file, is_replace)}\n...\ndo \"{dofile_path}\"\n...\n\"\"\"\n```\n\nThe `generate_log_command` method returns:\n\n```python\nlog_cmd = f\u0027log using \"{log_file.as_posix()}\", {replace_clause} {log_type} name({log_type}_log)\u0027\n```\n\nWhere `log_file` is constructed from user-supplied `log_name`:\n\n```python\ndef generate_log_file(self, log_name: str, extension=\u0027log\u0027):\n return self.log_file_path / f\"{log_name}.{extension}\"\n```\n\nThe `log_name` parameter comes directly from user input (via MCP tool `stata_do` or CLI `stata-mcp tool do`) without any validation. Since the path is embedded inside double quotes in a Stata command string, an attacker can break out of the string context and inject arbitrary commands.\n\nAdditionally, `generate_log_file` does not prevent path traversal via `log_name`, allowing arbitrary file write outside the intended log directory.\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\nWhen calling `stata_do` via MCP tool with:\n\n```json\n{\n \"dofile_path\": \"test.do\",\n \"log_file_name\": \"\u0027; shell echo pwned \u003e /tmp/pwned.txt; \u0027\"\n}\n```\n\nThe generated Stata commands become:\n\n```stata\nlog using \"\u003clog_dir\u003e/\u0027; shell echo pwned \u003e /tmp/pwned.txt; \u0027.log\", replace text name(text_log)\n```\n\nStata interprets this as multiple commands, with `shell echo pwned \u003e /tmp/pwned.txt;` executed as an arbitrary shell command.\n\n### Impact\n\n- **Remote Code Execution** via `shell` command injection\n- **Arbitrary file write/overwrite** via path traversal in `log_name`\n- Complete bypass of the security guard, as the guard only validates do-file content, not wrapper parameters\n\n### Remediation / Fix\n\n1. Apply strict allowlist validation to `log_name` (only alphanumeric, underscore, dot, hyphen; max 128 chars)\n2. Resolve and verify the constructed log path remains within the intended log directory\n3. Consider generating safe internal filenames (e.g., UUIDs) instead of accepting user-defined log names for command construction\n4. Apply similar sanitization to `dofile_path` before embedding it into Stata command strings\n\n### References\n\n- Issue: #74\n- Fix commit: https://github.com/SepineTam/stata-mcp/commit/e6f945941ae0c7cf5e74a428e0b3dc82b396382f",
"id": "GHSA-4p62-hqp5-g644",
"modified": "2026-06-04T21:00:42Z",
"published": "2026-06-04T21:00:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SepineTam/stata-mcp/security/advisories/GHSA-4p62-hqp5-g644"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SepineTam/mcp-for-stata/issues/74"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SepineTam/mcp-for-stata/commit/e6f945941ae0c7cf5e74a428e0b3dc82b396382f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/SepineTam/stata-mcp"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "MCP-for-Stata: Command injection via log_file_name parameter in Stata command wrapper"
}
GHSA-4P74-9WGM-4FJQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-01 00:00 – Updated: 2024-08-20 15:32Stormshield Network Security (SNS) before 4.2.2 allows a read-only administrator to gain privileges via CLI commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28962"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-31T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Stormshield Network Security (SNS) before 4.2.2 allows a read-only administrator to gain privileges via CLI commands.",
"id": "GHSA-4p74-9wgm-4fjq",
"modified": "2024-08-20T15:32:11Z",
"published": "2022-02-01T00:00:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28962"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisories.stormshield.eu"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisories.stormshield.eu/2021-007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://documentation.stormshield.eu/SNS/v4/en/Content/Release_Notes_SNS/Getting_Started_RNO.htm"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
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.
Mitigation
Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
Mitigation
Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CAPEC-136: LDAP Injection
An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
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-183: IMAP/SMTP Command Injection
An adversary exploits weaknesses in input validation on web-mail servers to execute commands on the IMAP/SMTP server. Web-mail servers often sit between the Internet and the IMAP or SMTP mail server. User requests are received by the web-mail servers which then query the back-end mail server for the requested information and return this response to the user. In an IMAP/SMTP command injection attack, mail-server commands are embedded in parts of the request sent to the web-mail server. If the web-mail server fails to adequately sanitize these requests, these commands are then sent to the back-end mail server when it is queried by the web-mail server, where the commands are then executed. This attack can be especially dangerous since administrators may assume that the back-end server is protected against direct Internet access and therefore may not secure it adequately against the execution of malicious commands.
CAPEC-248: Command Injection
An adversary looking to execute a command of their choosing, injects new items into an existing command thus modifying interpretation away from what was intended. Commands in this context are often standalone strings that are interpreted by a downstream component and cause specific responses. This type of attack is possible when untrusted values are used to build these command strings. Weaknesses in input validation or command construction can enable the attack and lead to successful exploitation.
CAPEC-40: Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices
This attack exploits terminal devices that allow themselves to be written to by other users. The attacker sends command strings to the target terminal device hoping that the target user will hit enter and thereby execute the malicious command with their privileges. The attacker can send the results (such as copying /etc/passwd) to a known directory and collect once the attack has succeeded.
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-75: Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.