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.
5382 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-F79P-9C5R-XG88
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-02 17:31 – Updated: 2025-09-02 17:31Impact
A command injection vulnerability was discovered in the SonarQube Scan GitHub Action that allows untrusted input arguments to be processed without proper sanitization. Arguments sent to the action are treated as shell expressions, allowing potential execution of arbitrary commands.
Patches
A fix has been released in SonarQube Scan GitHub Action v5.3.1.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.3.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
"name": "SonarSource/sonarqube-scan-action"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.3.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-58178"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-02T17:31:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nA command injection vulnerability was discovered in the SonarQube Scan GitHub Action that allows untrusted input arguments to be processed without proper sanitization. Arguments sent to the action are treated as shell expressions, allowing potential execution of arbitrary commands.\n\n### Patches\nA fix has been released in SonarQube Scan GitHub Action v5.3.1.",
"id": "GHSA-f79p-9c5r-xg88",
"modified": "2025-09-02T17:31:57Z",
"published": "2025-09-02T17:31:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SonarSource/sonarqube-scan-action/security/advisories/GHSA-f79p-9c5r-xg88"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SonarSource/sonarqube-scan-action/pull/200"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SonarSource/sonarqube-scan-action/commit/016cabf33a6b7edf0733e179a03ad408ad4e88ba"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://community.sonarsource.com/t/security-advisory-sonarqube-scanner-github-action/147696"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/SonarSource/sonarqube-scan-action"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sonarsource.atlassian.net/browse/SQSCANGHA-101"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Command Injection via sonarqube-scan-action GitHub Action"
}
GHSA-F7C6-45Q5-522X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:11 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:11An issue in Dut Computer Control Engineering Co.'s PLC MAC1100 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-18758"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-13T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue in Dut Computer Control Engineering Co.\u0027s PLC MAC1100 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code.",
"id": "GHSA-f7c6-45q5-522x",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:11:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:11:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-18758"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Ni9htMar3/vulnerability/blob/master/PLC/DCCE/DCCE%20MAC1100%20PLC_upload.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-F7F4-5W9J-23P2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2017-10-24 18:33 – Updated: 2023-01-25 23:16The festivaltts4r gem for Ruby allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in a string to the (1) to_speech or (2) to_mp3 method in lib/festivaltts4r/festival4r.rb.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "festivaltts4r"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.2.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-10194"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-06-16T21:33:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The festivaltts4r gem for Ruby allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in a string to the (1) `to_speech` or (2) `to_mp3` method in `lib/festivaltts4r/festival4r.rb`.",
"id": "GHSA-f7f4-5w9j-23p2",
"modified": "2023-01-25T23:16:58Z",
"published": "2017-10-24T18:33:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10194"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/spejman/festivaltts4r/issues/1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/spejman/festivaltts4r"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/01/31/14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/02/02/5"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "festivaltts4r allows arbitrary command execution"
}
GHSA-F7FP-JM38-GHWW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 21:36 – Updated: 2026-07-01 21:36An unauthenticated command injection vulnerability in the /goform/fast_setting_internet_set endpoint of Tenda AC18 v15.03.05.05 allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted payload injected into the mac parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-38142"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-01T19:16:51Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An unauthenticated command injection vulnerability in the /goform/fast_setting_internet_set endpoint of Tenda AC18 v15.03.05.05 allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted payload injected into the mac parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-f7fp-jm38-ghww",
"modified": "2026-07-01T21:36:18Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T21:36:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-38142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/longqx223/Tenda-ac-18-V15.03.05.05-/blob/main/Tenda%20AC18%20Unauthenticated%20Second-Order%20OS%20Command%20Injection%20in%20goformfast_setting_internet_set.pdf"
}
],
"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-F7G5-V882-WPQX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-10 21:31 – Updated: 2025-07-10 21:31A vulnerability classified as critical was found in Tenda O3V2 1.0.0.12(3880). This vulnerability affects the function fromNetToolGet of the file /goform/setPingInfo of the component httpd. The manipulation of the argument domain leads to os command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-7414"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-10T21:15:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability classified as critical was found in Tenda O3V2 1.0.0.12(3880). This vulnerability affects the function fromNetToolGet of the file /goform/setPingInfo of the component httpd. The manipulation of the argument domain leads to os command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-f7g5-v882-wpqx",
"modified": "2025-07-10T21:31:54Z",
"published": "2025-07-10T21:31:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-7414"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/Tenda3/vuln_47/47.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/Tenda3/vuln_47/47.md#poc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.315874"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.315874"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.608855"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenda.com.cn"
}
],
"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: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-F7H8-QPXM-MQVF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-25 18:30 – Updated: 2025-09-26 21:30An issue in petstore v.1.0.7 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the DELETE endpoint
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-29155"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-25T18:15:39Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue in petstore v.1.0.7 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the DELETE endpoint",
"id": "GHSA-f7h8-qpxm-mqvf",
"modified": "2025-09-26T21:30:28Z",
"published": "2025-09-25T18:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-29155"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/HouqiyuA/4efd1aac7c7c7ab0cd5db48d62541a74"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-petstore"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-petstore/blob/master/src/main/resources/openapi.yaml"
}
],
"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-F7P7-G8CW-67H3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-11 00:02 – Updated: 2022-03-18 00:01In ims service, there is a possible AT command injection due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06219083; Issue ID: ALPS06219083.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-20054"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-10T17:45:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In ims service, there is a possible AT command injection due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06219083; Issue ID: ALPS06219083.",
"id": "GHSA-f7p7-g8cw-67h3",
"modified": "2022-03-18T00:01:23Z",
"published": "2022-03-11T00:02:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20054"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://corp.mediatek.com/product-security-bulletin/March-2022"
}
],
"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-F824-2FPJ-C8C9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-11 12:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:55A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions < V2.16.0). The SCEP server configuration URL parameter in the web interface of affected devices is vulnerable to command injection due to missing server side input sanitation. This could allow an authenticated privileged remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-36754"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-11T10:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions \u003c V2.16.0). The SCEP server configuration URL parameter in the web interface of affected devices is vulnerable to command injection due to missing server side input sanitation. This could allow an authenticated privileged remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-f824-2fpj-c8c9",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:55:47Z",
"published": "2023-07-11T12:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36754"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-146325.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-F832-7FHG-M78H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:16 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:31A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way that the MSHTML engine inproperly validates input, aka "MSHTML Engine Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This affects Microsoft Office, Microsoft Office Word Viewer, Internet Explorer 9, Internet Explorer 11, Microsoft Excel Viewer, Internet Explorer 10, Office 365 ProPlus.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-0541"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-08T21:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way that the MSHTML engine inproperly validates input, aka \"MSHTML Engine Remote Code Execution Vulnerability.\" This affects Microsoft Office, Microsoft Office Word Viewer, Internet Explorer 9, Internet Explorer 11, Microsoft Excel Viewer, Internet Explorer 10, Office 365 ProPlus.",
"id": "GHSA-f832-7fhg-m78h",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:31:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:16:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-0541"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2019-0541"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2019-0541"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46536"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106402"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-F86V-9V45-85XF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-12 21:31 – Updated: 2026-05-12 21:31Command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management interface of AOS-8 and AOS-10 Operating Systems. Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44867"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-12T20:16:45Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management interface of AOS-8 and AOS-10 Operating Systems. Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system.",
"id": "GHSA-f86v-9v45-85xf",
"modified": "2026-05-12T21:31:35Z",
"published": "2026-05-12T21:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44867"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw05048en_us\u0026docLocale=en_US"
}
],
"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.