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-X45P-Q5PF-H9JX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:46 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:31The Symantec Messaging Gateway before 10.6.3-267 can encounter an issue of remote code execution, which describes a situation whereby an individual may obtain the ability to execute commands remotely on a target machine or in a target process. In this type of occurrence, after gaining access to the system, the attacker may attempt to elevate their privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-6327"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-08-11T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Symantec Messaging Gateway before 10.6.3-267 can encounter an issue of remote code execution, which describes a situation whereby an individual may obtain the ability to execute commands remotely on a target machine or in a target process. In this type of occurrence, after gaining access to the system, the attacker may attempt to elevate their privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-x45p-q5pf-h9jx",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:31:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:46:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-6327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2017-6327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42519"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.symantec.com/security_response/securityupdates/detail.jsp?fid=security_advisory\u0026pvid=security_advisory\u0026year=\u0026suid=20170810_00"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2017/Aug/28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/100135"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X49M-3CW7-GQ5Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-23 21:44 – Updated: 2023-06-26 16:31Summary
A configuration injection happens when user input is considered by the application in an unsanitized format and can reach the configuration file. A malicious user may craft a special payload that may lead to a command injection.
PoC
The vulnerable code snippet is /jcvi/apps/base.py#LL2227C1-L2228C41. Under some circumstances a user input is retrieved and stored within the fullpath variable which reaches the configuration file ~/.jcvirc.
fullpath = input(msg).strip()
config.set(PATH, name, fullpath)
I ripped a part of the codebase into a runnable PoC as follows. All the PoC does is call the getpath() function under some circumstances.
from configparser import (
ConfigParser,
RawConfigParser,
NoOptionError,
NoSectionError,
ParsingError,
)
import errno
import os
import sys
import os.path as op
import shutil
import signal
import sys
import logging
def is_exe(fpath):
return op.isfile(fpath) and os.access(fpath, os.X_OK)
def which(program):
"""
Emulates the unix which command.
>>> which("cat")
"/bin/cat"
>>> which("nosuchprogram")
"""
fpath, fname = op.split(program)
if fpath:
if is_exe(program):
return program
else:
for path in os.environ["PATH"].split(os.pathsep):
exe_file = op.join(path, program)
if is_exe(exe_file):
return exe_file
return None
def getpath(cmd, name=None, url=None, cfg="~/.jcvirc", warn="exit"):
"""
Get install locations of common binaries
First, check ~/.jcvirc file to get the full path
If not present, ask on the console and store
"""
p = which(cmd) # if in PATH, just returns it
if p:
return p
PATH = "Path"
config = RawConfigParser()
cfg = op.expanduser(cfg)
changed = False
if op.exists(cfg):
config.read(cfg)
assert name is not None, "Need a program name"
try:
fullpath = config.get(PATH, name)
except NoSectionError:
config.add_section(PATH)
changed = True
try:
fullpath = config.get(PATH, name)
except NoOptionError:
msg = "=== Configure path for {0} ===\n".format(name, cfg)
if url:
msg += "URL: {0}\n".format(url)
msg += "[Directory that contains `{0}`]: ".format(cmd)
fullpath = input(msg).strip()
config.set(PATH, name, fullpath)
changed = True
path = op.join(op.expanduser(fullpath), cmd)
if warn == "exit":
try:
assert is_exe(path), "***ERROR: Cannot execute binary `{0}`. ".format(path)
except AssertionError as e:
sys.exit("{0!s}Please verify and rerun.".format(e))
if changed:
configfile = open(cfg, "w")
config.write(configfile)
logging.debug("Configuration written to `{0}`.".format(cfg))
return path
# Call to getpath
path = getpath("not-part-of-path", name="CLUSTALW2", warn="warn")
print(path)
To run the PoC, you need to remove the config file ~/.jcvirc to emulate the first run,
# Run the PoC with the payload
echo -e "e\rvvvvvvvv = zzzzzzzz\n" | python3 poc.py
You can notice the random key/value characters vvvvvvvv = zzzzzzzz were successfully injected.
Impact
The impact of a configuration injection may vary. Under some conditions, it may lead to command injection if there is for instance shell code execution from the configuration file values.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "jcvi"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.3.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-35932"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1284",
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-06-23T21:44:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-23T22:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA configuration injection happens when user input is considered by the application in an unsanitized format and can reach the configuration file. A malicious user may craft a special payload that may lead to a command injection.\n\n### PoC\n\nThe vulnerable code snippet is [/jcvi/apps/base.py#LL2227C1-L2228C41](https://github.com/tanghaibao/jcvi/blob/cede6c65c8e7603cb266bc3395ac8f915ea9eac7/jcvi/apps/base.py#LL2227C1-L2228C41). Under some circumstances a user input is retrieved and stored within the `fullpath` variable which reaches the configuration file `~/.jcvirc`.\n\n```python\n fullpath = input(msg).strip()\n config.set(PATH, name, fullpath)\n```\n\nI ripped a part of the codebase into a runnable PoC as follows. All the PoC does is call the `getpath()` function under some circumstances.\n\n```python\nfrom configparser import (\n ConfigParser,\n RawConfigParser,\n NoOptionError,\n NoSectionError,\n ParsingError,\n)\n\nimport errno\nimport os\nimport sys\nimport os.path as op\nimport shutil\nimport signal\nimport sys\nimport logging\n\n\ndef is_exe(fpath):\n return op.isfile(fpath) and os.access(fpath, os.X_OK)\n\n\ndef which(program):\n \"\"\"\n Emulates the unix which command.\n\n \u003e\u003e\u003e which(\"cat\")\n \"/bin/cat\"\n \u003e\u003e\u003e which(\"nosuchprogram\")\n \"\"\"\n fpath, fname = op.split(program)\n if fpath:\n if is_exe(program):\n return program\n else:\n for path in os.environ[\"PATH\"].split(os.pathsep):\n exe_file = op.join(path, program)\n if is_exe(exe_file):\n return exe_file\n\n return None\n\n\ndef getpath(cmd, name=None, url=None, cfg=\"~/.jcvirc\", warn=\"exit\"):\n \"\"\"\n Get install locations of common binaries\n First, check ~/.jcvirc file to get the full path\n If not present, ask on the console and store\n \"\"\"\n p = which(cmd) # if in PATH, just returns it\n if p:\n return p\n\n PATH = \"Path\"\n config = RawConfigParser()\n cfg = op.expanduser(cfg)\n changed = False\n if op.exists(cfg):\n config.read(cfg)\n\n assert name is not None, \"Need a program name\"\n\n try:\n fullpath = config.get(PATH, name)\n except NoSectionError:\n config.add_section(PATH)\n changed = True\n\n try:\n fullpath = config.get(PATH, name)\n except NoOptionError:\n msg = \"=== Configure path for {0} ===\\n\".format(name, cfg)\n if url:\n msg += \"URL: {0}\\n\".format(url)\n msg += \"[Directory that contains `{0}`]: \".format(cmd)\n fullpath = input(msg).strip()\n config.set(PATH, name, fullpath)\n changed = True\n\n path = op.join(op.expanduser(fullpath), cmd)\n if warn == \"exit\":\n try:\n assert is_exe(path), \"***ERROR: Cannot execute binary `{0}`. \".format(path)\n except AssertionError as e:\n sys.exit(\"{0!s}Please verify and rerun.\".format(e))\n\n if changed:\n configfile = open(cfg, \"w\")\n config.write(configfile)\n logging.debug(\"Configuration written to `{0}`.\".format(cfg))\n\n return path\n\n\n# Call to getpath\npath = getpath(\"not-part-of-path\", name=\"CLUSTALW2\", warn=\"warn\")\nprint(path)\n\n```\n\nTo run the PoC, you need to remove the config file `~/.jcvirc` to emulate the first run, \n\n```bash\n# Run the PoC with the payload\necho -e \"e\\rvvvvvvvv = zzzzzzzz\\n\" | python3 poc.py\n```\n\n\n\nYou can notice the random key/value characters `vvvvvvvv = zzzzzzzz` were successfully injected.\n\n### Impact\n\nThe impact of a configuration injection may vary. Under some conditions, it may lead to command injection if there is for instance shell code execution from the configuration file values.\n",
"id": "GHSA-x49m-3cw7-gq5q",
"modified": "2023-06-26T16:31:23Z",
"published": "2023-06-23T21:44:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tanghaibao/jcvi/security/advisories/GHSA-x49m-3cw7-gq5q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-35932"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/tanghaibao/jcvi"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tanghaibao/jcvi/blob/cede6c65c8e7603cb266bc3395ac8f915ea9eac7/jcvi/apps/base.py#LL2227C1-L2228C41"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "jcvi vulnerable to Configuration Injection due to unsanitized user input "
}
GHSA-X49R-FPF3-6X75
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-2026-44866"
],
"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-x49r-fpf3-6x75",
"modified": "2026-05-12T21:31:35Z",
"published": "2026-05-12T21:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44866"
},
{
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-X4GV-4VPC-956P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-02 12:30 – Updated: 2025-06-02 12:30A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Linksys RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000 and RE9000 1.0.013.001/1.0.04.001/1.0.04.002/1.1.05.003/1.2.07.001. Affected is the function wirelessAdvancedHidden of the file /goform/wirelessAdvancedHidden. The manipulation of the argument ExtChSelector/24GSelector/5GSelector leads to os command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-5443"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-02T12:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Linksys RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000 and RE9000 1.0.013.001/1.0.04.001/1.0.04.002/1.1.05.003/1.2.07.001. Affected is the function wirelessAdvancedHidden of the file /goform/wirelessAdvancedHidden. The manipulation of the argument ExtChSelector/24GSelector/5GSelector leads to os command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-x4gv-4vpc-956p",
"modified": "2025-06-02T12:30:34Z",
"published": "2025-06-02T12:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-5443"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/Linksys/vuln_6/6.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.310782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.310782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.584365"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.linksys.com"
}
],
"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: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-X4J2-CGW7-F7XV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:02 – Updated: 2022-07-11 00:00In Pluck-4.7.10-dev2 admin background, a remote command execution vulnerability exists when uploading files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-20951"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-18T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In Pluck-4.7.10-dev2 admin background, a remote command execution vulnerability exists when uploading files.",
"id": "GHSA-x4j2-cgw7-f7xv",
"modified": "2022-07-11T00:00:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:02:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-20951"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pluck-cms/pluck/issues/84"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/434.html"
}
],
"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-X4MP-3JQ7-HC8R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:06 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:32The handle_certificate function in /vmi/manager/engine/management/commands/apns_worker.py in Trend Micro Virtual Mobile Infrastructure before 5.1 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the password to api/v1/cfg/oauth/save_identify_pfx/.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-6270"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-01-30T22:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The handle_certificate function in /vmi/manager/engine/management/commands/apns_worker.py in Trend Micro Virtual Mobile Infrastructure before 5.1 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the password to api/v1/cfg/oauth/save_identify_pfx/.",
"id": "GHSA-x4mp-3jq7-hc8r",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:32:03Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:06:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-6270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://qkaiser.github.io/pentesting/trendmicro/2016/10/08/trendmicro-vmi"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/solution/1115411"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95884"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X4P8-3PCC-V355
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-17 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:13TP-Link TL-WPA4530 KIT V2 (EU)_170406 and V2 (EU)_161115 is vulnerable to Command Injection via _httpRpmPlcDeviceRemove.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-31701"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-17T14:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "TP-Link TL-WPA4530 KIT V2 (EU)_170406 and V2 (EU)_161115 is vulnerable to Command Injection via _httpRpmPlcDeviceRemove.",
"id": "GHSA-x4p8-3pcc-v355",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:13:43Z",
"published": "2023-05-17T15:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-31701"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FirmRec/IoT-Vulns/blob/main/tp-link/postPlcJson/report.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X4Q8-V75R-2C9V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-30 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-09 00:00Improper neutralization of special elements used in a user input allows an authenticated malicious user to perform remote code execution in the host system. This vulnerability impacts SonicWall Switch 1.1.1.0-2s and earlier versions
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-2323"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-29T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in a user input allows an authenticated malicious user to perform remote code execution in the host system. This vulnerability impacts SonicWall Switch 1.1.1.0-2s and earlier versions",
"id": "GHSA-x4q8-v75r-2c9v",
"modified": "2022-08-09T00:00:25Z",
"published": "2022-07-30T00:00:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2323"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2022-0013"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X4WH-CCMQ-R3HV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:26An os command injection vulnerability exists in the liburvpn.so create_private_key functionality of Milesight VPN v2.0.2. A specially-crafted network request can lead to command execution. An attacker can send a malicious packet to trigger this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22371"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-06T15:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An os command injection vulnerability exists in the liburvpn.so create_private_key functionality of Milesight VPN v2.0.2. A specially-crafted network request can lead to command execution. An attacker can send a malicious packet to trigger this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-x4wh-ccmq-r3hv",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:26:43Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2023-1703"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X52G-GW6G-WPP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:07 – Updated: 2022-06-29 00:00A remote arbitrary command execution vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): Prior to 6.10.0, 6.9.6 and 6.8.9. Aruba has released updates to ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-34616"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-08T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A remote arbitrary command execution vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): Prior to 6.10.0, 6.9.6 and 6.8.9. Aruba has released updates to ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-x52g-gw6g-wpp2",
"modified": "2022-06-29T00:00:53Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:07:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34616"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2021-012.txt"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.