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.
5383 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-GX79-FMCG-96M2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-31 15:30 – Updated: 2025-08-18 18:30A command injection vulnerability in the telnet service of Adtran 411 ONT L80.00.0011.M2 allows attackers to escalate privileges to root and execute arbitrary commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-22939"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-31T15:15:43Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A command injection vulnerability in the telnet service of Adtran 411 ONT L80.00.0011.M2 allows attackers to escalate privileges to root and execute arbitrary commands.",
"id": "GHSA-gx79-fmcg-96m2",
"modified": "2025-08-18T18:30:33Z",
"published": "2025-03-31T15:30:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22939"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1levaZk5aC6g6a2zPW8xlOIVAu9MFYvAz/view"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lanrat.com/posts/adtran-isp-hacking"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aic-QaSqjxc"
}
],
"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-GXCR-WWM9-8R9R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-14 18:30 – Updated: 2026-04-14 18:30Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in Windows Snipping Tool allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32183"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-14T18:17:20Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command (\u0027command injection\u0027) in Windows Snipping Tool allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally.",
"id": "GHSA-gxcr-wwm9-8r9r",
"modified": "2026-04-14T18:30:41Z",
"published": "2026-04-14T18:30:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32183"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-32183"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GXF9-WP85-JQR4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-07 15:30 – Updated: 2023-12-09 06:30Tenda AX12 V22.03.01.46 has been discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the 'list' parameter at /goform/SetNetControlList.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-49437"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-07T15:15:10Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda AX12 V22.03.01.46 has been discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the \u0027list\u0027 parameter at /goform/SetNetControlList.",
"id": "GHSA-gxf9-wp85-jqr4",
"modified": "2023-12-09T06:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-12-07T15:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-49437"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ef4tless/vuln/blob/master/iot/AX12/SetNetControlList-3.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-GXH2-X2V6-99JR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-25 03:30 – Updated: 2024-09-25 03:30Command injection vulnerabilities in the underlying CLI service could lead to unauthenticated remote code execution by sending specially crafted packets destined to the PAPI (Aruba's Access Point management protocol) UDP port (8211). Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities results in the ability to execute arbitrary code as a privileged user on the underlying operating system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42505"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-25T01:15:42Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Command injection vulnerabilities in the underlying CLI service could lead to unauthenticated remote code execution by sending specially crafted packets destined to the PAPI (Aruba\u0027s Access Point management protocol) UDP port (8211). Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities results in the ability to execute arbitrary code as a privileged user on the underlying operating system.",
"id": "GHSA-gxh2-x2v6-99jr",
"modified": "2024-09-25T03:30:35Z",
"published": "2024-09-25T03:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42505"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw04712en_us\u0026docLocale=en_US"
}
],
"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-GXV9-H4XJ-HCGV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:25 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:46Eval injection vulnerability in the fm_saveHelperGatherItems function in ajax.php in the Form Manager plugin before 1.7.3 for WordPress allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-7806"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-17T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Eval injection vulnerability in the fm_saveHelperGatherItems function in ajax.php in the Form Manager plugin before 1.7.3 for WordPress allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-gxv9-h4xj-hcgv",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:46:57Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:25:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-7806"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/1264145"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpvulndb.com/vulnerabilities/8220"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://appcheck-ng.com/remote-command-execution-in-wordpress-form-manager-plugin-cve-2015-7806"
}
],
"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-GXW2-2H2W-JV57
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-24 12:31 – Updated: 2025-08-24 12:31A vulnerability was found in DCN DCME-720 9.1.5.11. This affects an unknown function of the file /usr/local/www/function/audit/newstatistics/ip_block.php of the component Web Management Backend. Performing manipulation of the argument ip results in os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. Other products might be affected as well. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9387"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-24T12:15:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in DCN DCME-720 9.1.5.11. This affects an unknown function of the file /usr/local/www/function/audit/newstatistics/ip_block.php of the component Web Management Backend. Performing manipulation of the argument ip results in os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. Other products might be affected as well. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-gxw2-2h2w-jv57",
"modified": "2025-08-24T12:31:34Z",
"published": "2025-08-24T12:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9387"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lin-3-start/lin-cve/blob/main/DCME-720/DCME-720.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lin-3-start/lin-cve/blob/main/DCME-720/DCME-720.md#%E9%AA%8C%E8%AF%81"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.321220"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.321220"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.630727"
}
],
"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-GXW4-4FC5-9GR5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-30 17:01 – Updated: 2025-09-30 17:01Summary
A command injection vulnerability exists in the figma-developer-mcp MCP Server. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to child_process.exec, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process's privileges.
The server constructs and executes shell commands using unvalidated user input directly within command-line strings. This introduces the possibility of shell metacharacter injection (|, >, &&, etc.).
Details
The MCP Server exposes tools to perform several figma operations. An MCP Client can be instructed to execute additional actions for example via indirect prompt injection that can lead to command injection by calling vulnerable tools with malicious inputs. Below some example of vulnerable code and different ways to test this vulnerability.
Vulnerable code
The following snippet illustrates the vulnerable code pattern used in the MCP Server’s tooling.
// https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP/blob/v0.5.2/src/utils/fetch-with-retry.ts#L35
export async function fetchWithRetry<T>(url: string, options: RequestOptions = {}): Promise<T> {
try {
const response = await fetch(url, options);
...
} catch (fetchError: any) {
...
const curlHeaders = formatHeadersForCurl(options.headers);
...
const curlCommand = `curl -s -S --fail-with-body -L ${curlHeaders.join(" ")} "${url}"`; //<---
Using MCP Client IDE
1) Verify the file /tmp/TEST1 does not exist:
cat /tmp/TEST1
cat: /tmp/TEST1: No such file or directory
2) setup your client IDE
{
"mcpServers": {
"Framelink Figma MCP": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "figma-developer-mcp", "--figma-api-key=TEST", "--stdio"]
}
}
}
4) open the chat and enter the following prompt:
Get comprehensive Figma file from fileKey="$(id>/tmp/TEST1)" (do not remove any char) - do not call any other tool
5) run the get_figma_data tool
{
"fileKey": "$(id>/tmp/TEST1)"
}
6) Confirm that the injected command executed:
cat /tmp/TEST1
uid=....
Using MCP Inspector
1) Open the MCP Inspector:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector
2) In MCP Inspector:
- set transport type: STDIO
- set the command to npx
- set the arguments to figma-developer-mcp --stdio
- set the FIGMA_API_KEY env variable (i.e TEST)
- click Connect
- go to the Tools tab and click List Tools
- select the get_figma_data tool
3) Verify the file /tmp/TEST does not exist:
cat /tmp/TEST2
cat: /tmp/TEST: No such file or directory
5) In the fileKey field, input:
$(id>/tmp/TEST2)
- Click Run Tool 6) Observe the request being sent:
{
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "get_figma_data",
"arguments": {
"fileKey": "$(id>/tmp/TEST2)"
},
"_meta": {
"progressToken": 0
}
}
}
Output:
{
"content": [
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Error fetching file: Failed to make request to Figma API endpoint '/files/$(id>/tmp/TEST2)': Fetch failed with status 404: Not Found"
}
],
"isError": true
}
Logs:
[INFO] [fetchWithRetry] Executing curl command: curl -s -S --fail-with-body -L -H "X-Figma-Token: test" "https://api.figma.com/v1/files/$(id>/tmp/TEST2)"
7) Confirm that the injected command executed:
cat /tmp/TEST2
uid=.....
Remediation
To mitigate this vulnerability, I suggest to avoid using child_process.exec with untrusted input. Instead, use a safer API such as child_process.execFile, which allows you to pass arguments as a separate array — avoiding shell interpretation entirely.
NOTE: This mitigation—and others like input validation—have been implemented in versions 0.6.3 and above. To fix the issue, make sure you're using a version >=0.6.3.
Impact
Command Injection / Remote Code Execution (RCE)
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.6.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "figma-developer-mcp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-53967"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-30T17:01:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA command injection vulnerability exists in the `figma-developer-mcp` MCP Server. The vulnerability is caused by the unsanitized use of input parameters within a call to `child_process.exec`, enabling an attacker to inject arbitrary system commands. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution under the server process\u0027s privileges. \n\nThe server constructs and executes shell commands using unvalidated user input directly within command-line strings. This introduces the possibility of shell metacharacter injection (`|`, `\u003e`, `\u0026\u0026`, etc.).\n\n### Details\n\nThe MCP Server exposes tools to perform several figma operations. An MCP Client can be instructed to execute additional actions for example via indirect prompt injection that can lead to command injection by calling vulnerable tools with malicious inputs. Below some example of vulnerable code and different ways to test this vulnerability.\n\n### Vulnerable code\n\nThe following snippet illustrates the vulnerable code pattern used in the MCP Server\u2019s tooling. \n```js\n// https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP/blob/v0.5.2/src/utils/fetch-with-retry.ts#L35\n\nexport async function fetchWithRetry\u003cT\u003e(url: string, options: RequestOptions = {}): Promise\u003cT\u003e {\n try {\n const response = await fetch(url, options);\n ...\n } catch (fetchError: any) {\n\t...\n const curlHeaders = formatHeadersForCurl(options.headers);\n ...\n const curlCommand = `curl -s -S --fail-with-body -L ${curlHeaders.join(\" \")} \"${url}\"`; //\u003c---\n```\n\n\n#### Using MCP Client IDE\n\n1) Verify the file `/tmp/TEST`1 does **not** exist:\n```\ncat /tmp/TEST1\ncat: /tmp/TEST1: No such file or directory\n```\n\n2) setup your client IDE\n```json\n{\n \"mcpServers\": {\n \"Framelink Figma MCP\": {\n \"command\": \"npx\",\n \"args\": [\"-y\", \"figma-developer-mcp\", \"--figma-api-key=TEST\", \"--stdio\"]\n }\n }\n}\n```\n\n4) open the chat and enter the following prompt:\n```\nGet comprehensive Figma file from fileKey=\"$(id\u003e/tmp/TEST1)\" (do not remove any char) - do not call any other tool\n```\n\n5) run the `get_figma_data` tool\n```json\n{\n \"fileKey\": \"$(id\u003e/tmp/TEST1)\"\n}\n```\n\n\n6) Confirm that the injected command executed:\n```\ncat /tmp/TEST1\nuid=....\n```\n\n\n#### Using MCP Inspector\n\n1) Open the MCP Inspector:\n```\nnpx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector\n```\n\n2) In MCP Inspector:\n\t- set transport type: `STDIO`\n\t- set the `command` to `npx`\n\t- set the arguments to `figma-developer-mcp --stdio`\n\t- set the `FIGMA_API_KEY` env variable (i.e `TEST`)\n\t- click Connect\n\t- go to the **Tools** tab and click **List Tools**\n\t- select the `get_figma_data` tool\n\n3) Verify the file `/tmp/TEST` does **not** exist:\n```\ncat /tmp/TEST2\ncat: /tmp/TEST: No such file or directory\n```\n\n5) In the **fileKey** field, input:\n```\n$(id\u003e/tmp/TEST2)\n```\n- Click **Run Tool**\n6) Observe the request being sent:\n```json\n{\n \"method\": \"tools/call\",\n \"params\": {\n \"name\": \"get_figma_data\",\n \"arguments\": {\n \"fileKey\": \"$(id\u003e/tmp/TEST2)\"\n },\n \"_meta\": {\n \"progressToken\": 0\n }\n }\n}\n```\nOutput:\n```json\n{\n \"content\": [\n {\n \"type\": \"text\",\n \"text\": \"Error fetching file: Failed to make request to Figma API endpoint \u0027/files/$(id\u003e/tmp/TEST2)\u0027: Fetch failed with status 404: Not Found\"\n }\n ],\n \"isError\": true\n}\n```\nLogs:\n```\n[INFO] [fetchWithRetry] Executing curl command: curl -s -S --fail-with-body -L -H \"X-Figma-Token: test\" \"https://api.figma.com/v1/files/$(id\u003e/tmp/TEST2)\"\n```\n7) Confirm that the injected command executed:\n```\ncat /tmp/TEST2\nuid=.....\n```\n\n### Remediation\nTo mitigate this vulnerability, I suggest to avoid using `child_process.exec` with untrusted input. Instead, use a safer API such as [child_process.execFile](https://nodejs.org/api/child_process.html#child_processexecfilefile-args-options-callback), which allows you to pass arguments as a separate array \u2014 avoiding shell interpretation entirely.\n\n**NOTE: This mitigation\u2014and others like input validation\u2014have been implemented in versions 0.6.3 and above. To fix the issue, make sure you\u0027re using a version \u003e=0.6.3.**\n\n### Impact\n\nCommand Injection / Remote Code Execution (RCE)",
"id": "GHSA-gxw4-4fc5-9gr5",
"modified": "2025-09-30T17:01:42Z",
"published": "2025-09-30T17:01:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP/security/advisories/GHSA-gxw4-4fc5-9gr5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP/commit/7f4b5859454b0567c2121ff22c69a0344680b124"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "figma-developer-mcp vulnerable to command injection in get_figma_data tool"
}
GHSA-GXXF-7JPF-RJWQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:57 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:57ftagent.exe in EMC AutoStart 5.4.x and 5.5.x before 5.5.0.508 HF4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via crafted packets.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-0538"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-05-07T01:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ftagent.exe in EMC AutoStart 5.4.x and 5.5.x before 5.5.0.508 HF4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via crafted packets.",
"id": "GHSA-gxxf-7jpf-rjwq",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:57:47Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:57:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-0538"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/131749/EMC-AutoStart-5.4.3-5.5.0-Packet-Injection.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2015/May/25"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/581276"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1032237"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-H2C4-425W-45MH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-30 18:31 – Updated: 2025-07-30 21:31An issue in Aver PTC310UV2 firmware v.0.1.0000.59 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the SendAction function
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-45619"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-30T17:15:27Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue in Aver PTC310UV2 firmware v.0.1.0000.59 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the SendAction function",
"id": "GHSA-h2c4-425w-45mh",
"modified": "2025-07-30T21:31:38Z",
"published": "2025-07-30T18:31:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-45619"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/weedl/CVE-2025-45619"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://aver.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://ptc310uv2.com"
}
],
"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-H2G5-2RHX-FFGJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-05 00:00 – Updated: 2026-01-23 22:29Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-3872-f48p-pxqj. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
Weblate is a web based localization tool with tight version control integration. Prior to version 4.11.1, Weblate didn't properly sanitize some arguments passed to Git and Mercurial, allowing them to change their behavior in an unintended way. Instances where untrusted users cannot create new components are not affected. The issues were fixed in the 4.11.1 release.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Weblate"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-24727"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-03-14T23:12:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-04T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Duplicate Advisory\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-3872-f48p-pxqj. This link is maintained to preserve external references.\n\n## Original Description\nWeblate is a web based localization tool with tight version control integration. Prior to version 4.11.1, Weblate didn\u0027t properly sanitize some arguments passed to Git and Mercurial, allowing them to change their behavior in an unintended way. Instances where untrusted users cannot create new components are not affected. The issues were fixed in the 4.11.1 release.",
"id": "GHSA-h2g5-2rhx-ffgj",
"modified": "2026-01-23T22:29:40Z",
"published": "2022-03-05T00:00:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/security/advisories/GHSA-3872-f48p-pxqj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24727"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/commit/35d59f1f040541c358cece0a8d4a63183ca919b8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/commit/d83672a3e7415da1490334e2c9431e5da1966842"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Duplicate Advisory: Command injection in Weblate",
"withdrawn": "2026-01-23T22:29:40Z"
}
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.