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.
5388 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-54GH-5R45-9V33
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:17 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:17The FusionSphere OpenStack V100R006C00SPC102(NFV) has a command injection vulnerability. Due to the insufficient input validation on one port, an authenticated, local attacker may exploit the vulnerability to gain root privileges by sending message with malicious commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-8193"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-11-22T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The FusionSphere OpenStack V100R006C00SPC102(NFV) has a command injection vulnerability. Due to the insufficient input validation on one port, an authenticated, local attacker may exploit the vulnerability to gain root privileges by sending message with malicious commands.",
"id": "GHSA-54gh-5r45-9v33",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:17:10Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:17:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-8193"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20170830-01-OpenStack-en"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-54J7-GRVR-9XWG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-24 18:59 – Updated: 2025-09-26 16:29Command Injection in adb-mcp MCP Server
The MCP Server at https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp is written in a way that is vulnerable to command injection vulnerability attacks as part of some of its MCP Server tool definition and implementation.
The MCP Server is also published publicly to npm at www.npmjs.com/package/adb-mcp and allows users to install it.
Vulnerable tool
The MCP Server defines the function executeAdbCommand() which executes commands via string as a parameter and wraps the promise-based exec function.
The MCP Server then exposes the tool inspect_ui which relies on Node.js child process API exec (through the function wrapper) to execute the Android debugging command (adb). Relying on exec is an unsafe and vulnerable API if concatenated with untrusted user input.
Data flows from the tool definition here which takes in args.device and calls execPromise() in this definitino that uses exec in an insecure way.
Vulnerable line of code: https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/blob/master/src/index.ts#L334-L352
// Add adb UI dump tool
server.tool(
"inspect_ui",
AdbUidumpSchema.shape,
async (args: z.infer<typeof AdbUidumpSchema>, _extra: RequestHandlerExtra) => {
log(LogLevel.INFO, "Dumping UI hierarchy");
const deviceArg = formatDeviceArg(args.device);
const tempFilePath = createTempFilePath("adb-mcp", "window_dump.xml");
const remotePath = args.outputPath || "/sdcard/window_dump.xml";
try {
// Dump UI hierarchy on device
const dumpCommand = `adb ${deviceArg}shell uiautomator dump ${remotePath}`;
await execPromise(dumpCommand);
// Pull the UI dump from the device
const pullCommand = `adb ${deviceArg}pull ${remotePath} ${tempFilePath}`;
await execPromise(pullCommand);
// Clean up the remote file
await execPromise(`adb ${deviceArg}shell rm ${remotePath}`);
The argument to the tool, AdbDevicesSchema, is a Zod inferred type defined in the src/types.ts file in the project:
export const inspectUiInputSchema = {
device: z.string().optional().describe("Specific device ID (optional)"),
outputPath: z.string().optional().describe("Custom output path on device (default: /sdcard/window_dump.xml)"),
asBase64: z.boolean().optional().default(false).describe("Return XML content as base64 (default: false)")
};
and exposes device as a string which is an open way to trick the LLM into pushing arbitrary strings into it and hence achieve the command injection exploitation.
Exploitation
When LLMs are tricked through prompt injection (and other techniques and attack vectors) to call the tool with input that uses special shell characters such as ; rm -rf /tmp;# (be careful actually executing this payload) and other payload variations, the full command-line text will be interepted by the shell and result in other commands except of ps executing on the host running the MCP Server.
Reference example from prior security research on this topic, demonstrating how a similarly vulnerable MCP Server connected to Cursor is abused with prompt injection to bypass the developer's intended command:
Impact
User initiated and remote command injection on a running MCP Server.
Recommendation
- Don't use
exec. UseexecFileinstead, which pins the command and provides the arguments as array elements. - If the user input is not a command-line flag, use the
--notation to terminate command and command-line flag, and indicate that the text after the--double dash notation is benign value.
References and Prior work
- Command Injection in codehooks-mcp-server MCP Server project https://www.nodejs-security.com/blog/command-injection-vulnerability-codehooks-mcp-server-security-analysis identified as CVE-2025-53100
- Command Injection in ios-simulator-mcp-server MCP Server project https://www.nodejs-security.com/blog/ios-simulator-mcp-server-command-injection-vulnerability identified as CVE-2025-52573
- Liran's Node.js Secure Coding: Defending Against Command Injection Vulnerabilities
Credit
Disclosed by Liran Tal
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "adb-mcp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59834"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-24T18:59:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-25T14:15:46Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "# Command Injection in adb-mcp MCP Server\n\nThe MCP Server at https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp is written in a way that is vulnerable to command injection vulnerability attacks as part of some of its MCP Server tool definition and implementation.\n\nThe MCP Server is also published publicly to npm at www.npmjs.com/package/adb-mcp and allows users to install it.\n\n## Vulnerable tool\n\nThe MCP Server defines the function `executeAdbCommand()` which executes commands via string as a parameter and wraps the promise-based `exec` function.\n\nThe MCP Server then exposes the tool `inspect_ui` which relies on Node.js child process API `exec` (through the function wrapper) to execute the Android debugging command (`adb`). Relying on `exec` is an unsafe and vulnerable API if concatenated with untrusted user input.\n\nData flows from the tool definition [here](https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/blob/master/src/index.ts#L334-L343) which takes in `args.device` and calls `execPromise()` in [this definitino](https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/blob/master/src/index.ts#L346-L348C13) that uses `exec` in an insecure way.\n\nVulnerable line of code: [https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/blob/master/src/index.ts#L334-L352](https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/blob/master/src/index.ts#L334-L355)\n\n```js\n// Add adb UI dump tool\nserver.tool(\n \"inspect_ui\",\n AdbUidumpSchema.shape,\n async (args: z.infer\u003ctypeof AdbUidumpSchema\u003e, _extra: RequestHandlerExtra) =\u003e {\n log(LogLevel.INFO, \"Dumping UI hierarchy\");\n \n const deviceArg = formatDeviceArg(args.device);\n const tempFilePath = createTempFilePath(\"adb-mcp\", \"window_dump.xml\");\n const remotePath = args.outputPath || \"/sdcard/window_dump.xml\";\n \n try {\n // Dump UI hierarchy on device\n const dumpCommand = `adb ${deviceArg}shell uiautomator dump ${remotePath}`;\n await execPromise(dumpCommand);\n \n // Pull the UI dump from the device\n const pullCommand = `adb ${deviceArg}pull ${remotePath} ${tempFilePath}`;\n await execPromise(pullCommand);\n \n // Clean up the remote file\n await execPromise(`adb ${deviceArg}shell rm ${remotePath}`);\n```\n\nThe argument to the tool, `AdbDevicesSchema`, is a Zod inferred type defined in the `src/types.ts` file in the project:\n\n```js\nexport const inspectUiInputSchema = {\n device: z.string().optional().describe(\"Specific device ID (optional)\"),\n outputPath: z.string().optional().describe(\"Custom output path on device (default: /sdcard/window_dump.xml)\"),\n asBase64: z.boolean().optional().default(false).describe(\"Return XML content as base64 (default: false)\")\n};\n```\n\nand exposes `device` as a string which is an open way to trick the LLM into pushing arbitrary strings into it and hence achieve the command injection exploitation.\n\n\n## Exploitation\n\nWhen LLMs are tricked through prompt injection (and other techniques and attack vectors) to call the tool with input that uses special shell characters such as `; rm -rf /tmp;#` (be careful actually executing this payload) and other payload variations, the full command-line text will be interepted by the shell and result in other commands except of `ps` executing on the host running the MCP Server.\n\nReference example from prior security research on this topic, demonstrating how a similarly vulnerable MCP Server connected to Cursor is abused with prompt injection to bypass the developer\u0027s intended command:\n\n\n\n## Impact\n\nUser initiated and remote command injection on a running MCP Server.\n\n## Recommendation\n\n- Don\u0027t use `exec`. Use `execFile` instead, which pins the command and provides the arguments as array elements.\n- If the user input is not a command-line flag, use the `--` notation to terminate command and command-line flag, and indicate that the text after the `--` double dash notation is benign value.\n\n## References and Prior work\n\n1. Command Injection in codehooks-mcp-server MCP Server project https://www.nodejs-security.com/blog/command-injection-vulnerability-codehooks-mcp-server-security-analysis identified as CVE-2025-53100\n2. Command Injection in ios-simulator-mcp-server MCP Server project https://www.nodejs-security.com/blog/ios-simulator-mcp-server-command-injection-vulnerability identified as CVE-2025-52573\n3. Liran\u0027s [Node.js Secure Coding: Defending Against Command Injection Vulnerabilities](https://www.nodejs-security.com/book/command-injection)\n\n## Credit\n\nDisclosed by [Liran Tal](https://lirantal.com)",
"id": "GHSA-54j7-grvr-9xwg",
"modified": "2025-09-26T16:29:51Z",
"published": "2025-09-24T18:59:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/security/advisories/GHSA-54j7-grvr-9xwg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59834"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/commit/041729c0b25432df3199ff71b3163a307cf4c28c"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/srmorete/adb-mcp/blob/master/src/index.ts#L334-L355"
}
],
"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": "Command Injection in adb-mcp MCP Server"
}
GHSA-54JW-JQR9-6CJ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-26 21:30 – Updated: 2025-04-01 22:56All versions of the package vagrant.js are vulnerable to Command Injection via the boxAdd function due to improper input sanitization.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vagrant.js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.0.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25962"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-01-27T01:07:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-26T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "All versions of the package vagrant.js are vulnerable to Command Injection via the boxAdd function due to improper input sanitization.",
"id": "GHSA-54jw-jqr9-6cj9",
"modified": "2025-04-01T22:56:43Z",
"published": "2023-01-26T21:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25962"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/cakecatz/vagrant.js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-VAGRANTJS-3175614"
}
],
"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": "Command injection in vagrant.js"
}
GHSA-54PJ-VXRG-8R9X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-16 21:31 – Updated: 2025-01-22 18:31Tenda AC18 V15.03.05.19 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the usbName parameter in the formSetSambaConf function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-57583"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-16T21:15:17Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda AC18 V15.03.05.19 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the usbName parameter in the formSetSambaConf function.",
"id": "GHSA-54pj-vxrg-8r9x",
"modified": "2025-01-22T18:31:54Z",
"published": "2025-01-16T21:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-57583"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/qijiale/Tenda/tree/main/10"
}
],
"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-54V7-GQCW-27WJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-20 18:31 – Updated: 2025-11-21 00:30The read function in file thinkphp\library\think\template\driver\File.php in ThinkPHP 5.0.24 contains a remote code execution vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-63888"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-98"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-20T18:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The read function in file thinkphp\\library\\think\\template\\driver\\File.php in ThinkPHP 5.0.24 contains a remote code execution vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-54v7-gqcw-27wj",
"modified": "2025-11-21T00:30:21Z",
"published": "2025-11-20T18:31:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-63888"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/Master-0-0/0bf54cbb335b586b42b0db0db804e7aa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.yuque.com/lcc316/df0kgm/mglhbxltgbmzfh2s"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-54W4-2F2P-F48H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-26 00:01 – Updated: 2022-08-06 05:19A command injection vulnerability affects all versions of package deferred-exec. The injection point is located in line 42 in lib/deferred-exec.js
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "deferred-exec"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.3.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-28438"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-08-06T05:19:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-25T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A command injection vulnerability affects all versions of package deferred-exec. The injection point is located in line 42 in lib/deferred-exec.js",
"id": "GHSA-54w4-2f2p-f48h",
"modified": "2022-08-06T05:19:00Z",
"published": "2022-07-26T00:01:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-28438"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/danheberden/deferred-exec"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/danheberden/deferred-exec/blob/master/lib/deferred-exec.js#L42"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-DEFERREDEXEC-1050433"
}
],
"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": "deferred-exec Command Injection vulnerability"
}
GHSA-54W5-95MR-M6MW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-04 12:31 – Updated: 2026-02-04 12:31This vulnerability allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying system using the file name of an uploaded file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59818"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-04T11:16:01Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "This vulnerability allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying system using the file name of an uploaded file.",
"id": "GHSA-54w5-95mr-m6mw",
"modified": "2026-02-04T12:31:26Z",
"published": "2026-02-04T12:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59818"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.zenitel.com/wiki/Turbine_9.3_-_Release_notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.zenitel.com/wiki/VSF-Display_Series_9.3_Release_Notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.zenitel.com/wiki/VSF-Fortitude6_9.3_Release_Notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.zenitel.com/wiki/VSF-Fortitude8_9.3_Release_Notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.zenitel.com/wiki/ZIPS_9.3_-_Release_notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zenitel.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/A100K12333%20Zenitel%20Security%20Advisory.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-54WP-F6VM-V42X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-16 09:30 – Updated: 2026-02-16 09:30A security flaw has been discovered in yued-fe LuLu UI up to 3.0.0. This issue affects the function child_process.exec of the file run.js. The manipulation results in os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-2544"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-16T08:16:05Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A security flaw has been discovered in yued-fe LuLu UI up to 3.0.0. This issue affects the function child_process.exec of the file run.js. The manipulation results in os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-54wp-f6vm-v42x",
"modified": "2026-02-16T09:30:30Z",
"published": "2026-02-16T09:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-2544"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lakshayyverma/CVE-Discovery/blob/main/lulu.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.346153"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.346153"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.749722"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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-54XC-G42W-9WFF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-23 18:33 – Updated: 2026-04-23 21:31An issue was discovered in ToToLink A3300R firmware v17.0.0cu.557_B20221024 allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands via the informEnable parameter to /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-31174"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-23T18:16:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in ToToLink A3300R firmware v17.0.0cu.557_B20221024 allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands via the informEnable parameter to /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi.",
"id": "GHSA-54xc-g42w-9wff",
"modified": "2026-04-23T21:31:21Z",
"published": "2026-04-23T18:33:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31174"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Svigo-o/TOTOLINK-Vul/tree/main/totolink-a3300r-inform-enable-cmd-injection"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-555X-PQP3-GC3H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:45Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user. This affects XR450 before 2.3.2.114, XR500 before 2.3.2.114, and WNR2000v5 before 1.0.0.76.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-29069"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-23T07:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user. This affects XR450 before 2.3.2.114, XR500 before 2.3.2.114, and WNR2000v5 before 1.0.0.76.",
"id": "GHSA-555x-pqp3-gc3h",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:45:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-29069"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.netgear.com/000063023/Security-Advisory-for-Post-Authentication-Command-Injection-on-Some-Routers-PSV-2020-0595"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.