Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-78

Allowed

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

8621 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-5GPF-8PRR-WHQ8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-06 21:30 – Updated: 2026-02-06 21:30
VLAI
Details

A security flaw has been discovered in D-Link DIR-823X 250416. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /goform/set_ac_server of the component Web Management Interface. The manipulation of the argument ac_server results in os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

Severity
4.7 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
2.0 (Low)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-2063"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-77",
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-02-06T19:16:10Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A security flaw has been discovered in D-Link DIR-823X 250416. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /goform/set_ac_server of the component Web Management Interface. The manipulation of the argument ac_server results in os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.",
  "id": "GHSA-5gpf-8prr-whq8",
  "modified": "2026-02-06T21:30:49Z",
  "published": "2026-02-06T21:30:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-2063"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/master-abc/cve/issues/19"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.344623"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.344623"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.744720"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.dlink.com"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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-5GQG-MQH5-2V39

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-19 03:30 – Updated: 2026-03-19 19:13
VLAI
Summary
Duplicate Advisory: OpenClaw Windows Scheduled Task script generation allowed local command injection via unsafe cmd argument handling
Details

Duplicate Advisory

This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-mqr9-vqhq-3jxw. This link is maintained to preserve external references.

Original Description

OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.19 contain a local command injection vulnerability in Windows scheduled task script generation due to unsafe handling of cmd metacharacters and expansion-sensitive characters in gateway.cmd files. Local attackers with control over service script generation arguments can inject arbitrary commands by providing metacharacter-only values or CR/LF sequences that execute unintended code in the scheduled task context.

Severity
7.1 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
6.9 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.2.19"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-19T19:13:57Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-03-19T02:16:04Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Duplicate Advisory\n\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-mqr9-vqhq-3jxw. This link is maintained to preserve external references.\n\n## Original Description\nOpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.19 contain a local command injection vulnerability in Windows scheduled task script generation due to unsafe handling of cmd metacharacters and expansion-sensitive characters in gateway.cmd files. Local attackers with control over service script generation arguments can inject arbitrary commands by providing metacharacter-only values or CR/LF sequences that execute unintended code in the scheduled task context.",
  "id": "GHSA-5gqg-mqh5-2v39",
  "modified": "2026-03-19T19:13:57Z",
  "published": "2026-03-19T03:30:57Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-mqr9-vqhq-3jxw"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31994"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/280c6b117b2f0e24f398e5219048cd4cc3b82396"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-local-command-injection-via-unsafe-cmd-argument-handling-in-windows-scheduled-task"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Duplicate Advisory: OpenClaw Windows Scheduled Task script generation allowed local command injection via unsafe cmd argument handling",
  "withdrawn": "2026-03-19T19:13:57Z"
}

GHSA-5GV4-M6HR-96M6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-25 09:32 – Updated: 2024-03-25 09:32
VLAI
Details

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability in openEuler aops-zeus on Linux allows Command Injection. This vulnerability is associated with program files https://gitee.Com/openeuler/aops-zeus/blob/master/zeus/conf/constant.Py.

This issue affects aops-zeus: from 1.2.0 through 1.4.0.

Severity
7.2 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-24899"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-03-25T07:15:50Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability in openEuler aops-zeus on Linux allows Command Injection. This vulnerability is associated with program files https://gitee.Com/openeuler/aops-zeus/blob/master/zeus/conf/constant.Py.\n\nThis issue affects aops-zeus: from 1.2.0 through 1.4.0.\n\n",
  "id": "GHSA-5gv4-m6hr-96m6",
  "modified": "2024-03-25T09:32:33Z",
  "published": "2024-03-25T09:32:33Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-24899"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/aops-zeus/pulls/107"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/aops-zeus/pulls/108"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2024-1291"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2024-1292"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2024-1293"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2024-1294"
    }
  ],
  "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-5GVM-P57H-487Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:49 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:49
VLAI
Details

Quest DR Series Disk Backup software version before 4.0.3.1 allows command injection (issue 46 of 46).

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-11188"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2018-06-02T01:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Quest DR Series Disk Backup software version before 4.0.3.1 allows command injection (issue 46 of 46).",
  "id": "GHSA-5gvm-p57h-487q",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:49:08Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:49:08Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-11188"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.coresecurity.com/advisories/quest-dr-series-disk-backup-multiple-vulnerabilities"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/148003/Quest-DR-Series-Disk-Backup-Software-4.0.3-Code-Execution.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2018/May/71"
    }
  ],
  "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-5GW4-H372-4W6Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:43 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:43
VLAI
Details

The DHCP client on D-Link DIR-850L REV. A (with firmware through FW114WWb07_h2ab_beta1) and REV. B (with firmware through FW208WWb02) devices allows unauthenticated remote code execution as root because /etc/services/INET/inet_ipv4.php mishandles shell metacharacters, affecting generated files such as WAN-1-udhcpc.sh.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-14429"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-09-13T17:29:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "The DHCP client on D-Link DIR-850L REV. A (with firmware through FW114WWb07_h2ab_beta1) and REV. B (with firmware through FW208WWb02) devices allows unauthenticated remote code execution as root because /etc/services/INET/inet_ipv4.php mishandles shell metacharacters, affecting generated files such as WAN-1-udhcpc.sh.",
  "id": "GHSA-5gw4-h372-4w6q",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:43:26Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:43:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-14429"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://pierrekim.github.io/blog/2017-09-08-dlink-850l-mydlink-cloud-0days-vulnerabilities.html"
    }
  ],
  "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-5GWH-G79J-VH4Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2020-09-01 20:44 – Updated: 2021-09-24 20:36
VLAI
Summary
Command Injection in pdf-image
Details

Versions of pdf-image before 2.0.0 are vulnerable to command injection. This vulnerability is exploitable if the attacker has control over the pdfFilePath variable passed into pdf-image.

Recommendation

Update to version 2.0.0 or later.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "pdf-image"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.0.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-3757"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2020-08-31T18:32:08Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Versions of `pdf-image` before 2.0.0 are vulnerable to command injection. This vulnerability is exploitable if the attacker has control over the `pdfFilePath` variable passed into `pdf-image`.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nUpdate to version 2.0.0 or later.",
  "id": "GHSA-5gwh-g79j-vh4q",
  "modified": "2021-09-24T20:36:09Z",
  "published": "2020-09-01T20:44:52Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-3757"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/roest01/node-pdf-image/commit/54679496a89738443917608c2bbe2f6e5dd20e83"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/340208"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/roest01/node-pdf-image"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/670"
    }
  ],
  "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 pdf-image"
}

GHSA-5H2C-8V84-QPVR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-03 21:39 – Updated: 2026-03-03 21:39
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaw shell-env fallback trusted startup env and could execute attacker-influenced login-shell paths
Details

Summary

OpenClaw shell-env fallback trusted startup environment values and could execute attacker-influenced login-shell startup paths before loading env keys.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected versions: >= 2026.1.5 and <= 2026.2.21-2
  • Fixed on main: 9363c320d8ffe29290906752fab92621da02c3f7
  • Planned patched release version (pre-set): 2026.2.22

Details

The vulnerable chain was in the shell-env fallback path:

  1. src/infra/shell-env.ts
  2. resolveShell(env) trusted env.SHELL when set.

  3. execLoginShellEnvZero(...) executed ${SHELL} -l -c "env -0" with inherited runtime env.

  4. src/config/io.ts

  5. Config env values were applied before shell fallback execution.

  6. src/config/env-vars.ts / env policy coverage

  7. SHELL handling was hardened, but startup-path selectors (HOME, ZDOTDIR) still needed explicit blocking in config env ingestion and sanitization for shell fallback execution.

With env/config influence, this could trigger unintended command execution in shell startup processing on the OpenClaw host process context.

Fix

Mainline hardening now: - blocks SHELL, HOME, and ZDOTDIR during config env ingestion used by runtime fallback, - sanitizes shell fallback execution env, pinning HOME to the real user home and dropping ZDOTDIR + dangerous startup vars, - adds regression tests for config env ingestion and shell fallback/path-probe sanitization.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 9363c320d8ffe29290906752fab92621da02c3f7

Impact

  • Local code-execution risk in environments where attacker-controlled env/config input can reach shell-env fallback.
  • Under OpenClaw trust assumptions (SECURITY.md), this is not a public-remote issue and depends on crossing local trusted-operator boundaries.

Release Process Note

patched_versions is intentionally pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.22) so once npm release is out, maintainers can publish advisory immediately.

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.2.22"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-15",
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-03T21:39:51Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\nOpenClaw shell-env fallback trusted startup environment values and could execute attacker-influenced login-shell startup paths before loading env keys.\n\n### Affected Packages / Versions\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected versions: `\u003e= 2026.1.5` and `\u003c= 2026.2.21-2`\n- Fixed on `main`: `9363c320d8ffe29290906752fab92621da02c3f7`\n- Planned patched release version (pre-set): `2026.2.22`\n\n### Details\nThe vulnerable chain was in the shell-env fallback path:\n\n1. `src/infra/shell-env.ts`\n- `resolveShell(env)` trusted `env.SHELL` when set.\n- `execLoginShellEnvZero(...)` executed `${SHELL} -l -c \"env -0\"` with inherited runtime env.\n\n2. `src/config/io.ts`\n- Config env values were applied before shell fallback execution.\n\n3. `src/config/env-vars.ts` / env policy coverage\n- `SHELL` handling was hardened, but startup-path selectors (`HOME`, `ZDOTDIR`) still needed explicit blocking in config env ingestion and sanitization for shell fallback execution.\n\nWith env/config influence, this could trigger unintended command execution in shell startup processing on the OpenClaw host process context.\n\n### Fix\nMainline hardening now:\n- blocks `SHELL`, `HOME`, and `ZDOTDIR` during config env ingestion used by runtime fallback,\n- sanitizes shell fallback execution env, pinning `HOME` to the real user home and dropping `ZDOTDIR` + dangerous startup vars,\n- adds regression tests for config env ingestion and shell fallback/path-probe sanitization.\n\n### Fix Commit(s)\n- `9363c320d8ffe29290906752fab92621da02c3f7`\n\n### Impact\n- Local code-execution risk in environments where attacker-controlled env/config input can reach shell-env fallback.\n- Under OpenClaw trust assumptions (`SECURITY.md`), this is not a public-remote issue and depends on crossing local trusted-operator boundaries.\n\n### Release Process Note\n`patched_versions` is intentionally pre-set to the planned next release (`2026.2.22`) so once npm release is out, maintainers can publish advisory immediately.\n\nOpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.",
  "id": "GHSA-5h2c-8v84-qpvr",
  "modified": "2026-03-03T21:39:51Z",
  "published": "2026-03-03T21:39:51Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-5h2c-8v84-qpvr"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/9363c320d8ffe29290906752fab92621da02c3f7"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaw shell-env fallback trusted startup env and could execute attacker-influenced login-shell paths"
}

GHSA-5H74-7W4C-G92X

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-08 21:30 – Updated: 2024-02-15 18:30
VLAI
Details

An OS command injection vulnerability exists in Akaunting v3.1.3 and earlier. An attacker can manipulate the company locale when installing an app to execute system commands on the hosting server.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-22836"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-02-08T20:15:52Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "An OS command injection vulnerability exists in Akaunting v3.1.3 and earlier. An attacker can manipulate the company locale when installing an app to execute system commands on the hosting server.",
  "id": "GHSA-5h74-7w4c-g92x",
  "modified": "2024-02-15T18:30:40Z",
  "published": "2024-02-08T21:30:38Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-22836"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://akaunting.com"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/akaunting/akaunting/releases/tag/3.1.4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/u32i/cve/tree/main/CVE-2024-22836"
    }
  ],
  "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-5H76-37RV-2MFQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-03 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-03 18:30
VLAI
Details

TOTOLINK N300RT wireless router firmware versions prior to V3.4.0-B20250430 (discovered in V2.1.8-B20201030.1539) contain an OS command injection vulnerability in the Boa formWsc handling functionality. An unauthenticated attacker can send specially crafted requests to trigger command execution via the targetAPSsid request parameter.

Severity
9.3 (Critical)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-34319"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-12-03T17:15:51Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "TOTOLINK N300RT wireless router firmware versions prior to\u00a0V3.4.0-B20250430 (discovered in V2.1.8-B20201030.1539) contain an OS command injection vulnerability in the Boa formWsc handling functionality. An unauthenticated attacker can send specially crafted requests to trigger command execution via the targetAPSsid request parameter.",
  "id": "GHSA-5h76-37rv-2mfq",
  "modified": "2025-12-03T18:30:25Z",
  "published": "2025-12-03T18:30:25Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-34319"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://totolink.tw/support_view/N300RT"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.totolink.net/home/menu/detail/menu_listtpl/download/id/154/ids/36.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/totolink-n300rt-boa-formwsc-rce"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-5H82-G2M2-RMRV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-01 00:01 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:00
VLAI
Details

Multiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web_server action endpoints functionalities of Robustel R1510 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network request can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger these vulnerabilities.The /action/import_https_cert_file/ API is affected by command injection vulnerability.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-33313"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-06-30T19:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Multiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web_server action endpoints functionalities of Robustel R1510 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network request can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger these vulnerabilities.The `/action/import_https_cert_file/` API is affected by command injection vulnerability.",
  "id": "GHSA-5h82-g2m2-rmrv",
  "modified": "2022-07-13T00:00:41Z",
  "published": "2022-07-01T00:01:06Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-33313"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2022-1572"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.

Mitigation MIT-22
Architecture and Design Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

  • Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction

For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.

Mitigation MIT-15
Architecture and Design

For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Mitigation MIT-4.3
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
  • For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
Mitigation MIT-28
Implementation

Strategy: Output Encoding

While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).

Mitigation
Implementation

If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.

Mitigation MIT-27
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Parameterization

  • If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
  • Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
Mitigation MIT-5
Implementation

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.
  • When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
  • Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
  • Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
Mitigation MIT-21
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion

When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.

Mitigation MIT-32
Operation

Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening

Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).

Mitigation MIT-32
Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).

Mitigation MIT-39
Implementation
  • Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
  • If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
  • Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
  • In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Mitigation
Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.

Mitigation MIT-29
Operation

Strategy: Firewall

Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

Mitigation MIT-17
Architecture and Design Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

Mitigation MIT-16
Operation Implementation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection

An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.

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-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-6: Argument Injection

An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.

CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection

In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

← Back to the CWE list