CWE-94
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
9251 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-3F7X-RF2Q-C7Q4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:38 – Updated: 2025-04-12 12:36The av-centerd SOAP service in AlienVault OSSIM before 4.7.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted (1) remote_task or (2) get_license request, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-3804 and CVE-2014-3805.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-5210"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-08-21T14:55:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The av-centerd SOAP service in AlienVault OSSIM before 4.7.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted (1) remote_task or (2) get_license request, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-3804 and CVE-2014-3805.",
"id": "GHSA-3f7x-rf2q-c7q4",
"modified": "2025-04-12T12:36:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:38:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-5210"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://forums.alienvault.com/discussion/2690"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/69239"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-14-294"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-14-295"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3F83-V3JG-8CF4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:15 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:15PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in includes/header.php in Groone GLinks 2.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the abspath parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-0463"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-02-10T07:00:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in includes/header.php in Groone GLinks 2.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the abspath parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-3f83-v3jg-8cf4",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:15:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:15:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-0463"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/7954"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/33649"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/33578"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3F84-VWV5-R42G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-17 15:32 – Updated: 2026-09-17 15:32vm2 3.11.6 is vulnerable to a sandbox escape leading to remote code execution in the host Node.js process. The fix for GHSA-m283-3h24-438v is incomplete: the bridge gate at lib/bridge.js:1624 identity-checks only the direct call target when deciding whether to rebuild/sanitise a rejected host Promise value. Registering the rejection handler through Function.prototype.call or .apply indirection (e.g., p.then.call(p, undefined, cb)) makes the intercepted target host Function.prototype.call, so the sanitiser never runs and the raw host error reaches sandbox code with its own properties intact. If an embedder exposes a host-realm Promise to the sandbox (an async host function bridged via the sandbox option, or a NodeVM external module's async method) and that Promise rejects with an Error carrying a non-primitive own property referencing a host object (for example err.detail = process), untrusted code in the sandbox obtains a fully functional proxy to that host object and can execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the host process (e.g., e.detail.mainModule.require('child_process').execSync(...)). The direct p.then(undefined, cb), bind, and Reflect.apply forms are correctly sanitised. Fixed in vm2 3.11.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-92937"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-17T14:17:58Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "vm2 3.11.6 is vulnerable to a sandbox escape leading to remote code execution in the host Node.js process. The fix for GHSA-m283-3h24-438v is incomplete: the bridge gate at lib/bridge.js:1624 identity-checks only the direct call target when deciding whether to rebuild/sanitise a rejected host Promise value. Registering the rejection handler through Function.prototype.call or .apply indirection (e.g., p.then.call(p, undefined, cb)) makes the intercepted target host Function.prototype.call, so the sanitiser never runs and the raw host error reaches sandbox code with its own properties intact. If an embedder exposes a host-realm Promise to the sandbox (an async host function bridged via the sandbox option, or a NodeVM external module\u0027s async method) and that Promise rejects with an Error carrying a non-primitive own property referencing a host object (for example err.detail = process), untrusted code in the sandbox obtains a fully functional proxy to that host object and can execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the host process (e.g., e.detail.mainModule.require(\u0027child_process\u0027).execSync(...)). The direct p.then(undefined, cb), bind, and Reflect.apply forms are correctly sanitised. Fixed in vm2 3.11.7.",
"id": "GHSA-3f84-vwv5-r42g",
"modified": "2026-09-17T15:32:14Z",
"published": "2026-09-17T15:32:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/security/advisories/GHSA-647f-g98j-qq25"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-92937"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/vm2-3.11.6-remote-code-execution-via-promise-call-apply"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-3FC6-GF75-VVC3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:07 – Updated: 2022-08-17 00:00A vulnerability in the Cisco Adaptive Security Device Manager (ASDM) Launcher could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on a user's operating system. This vulnerability is due to a lack of proper signature verification for specific code exchanged between the ASDM and the Launcher. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by leveraging a man-in-the-middle position on the network to intercept the traffic between the Launcher and the ASDM and then inject arbitrary code. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the user's operating system with the level of privileges assigned to the ASDM Launcher. A successful exploit may require the attacker to perform a social engineering attack to persuade the user to initiate communication from the Launcher to the ASDM.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1585"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-08T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the Cisco Adaptive Security Device Manager (ASDM) Launcher could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on a user\u0027s operating system. This vulnerability is due to a lack of proper signature verification for specific code exchanged between the ASDM and the Launcher. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by leveraging a man-in-the-middle position on the network to intercept the traffic between the Launcher and the ASDM and then inject arbitrary code. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the user\u0027s operating system with the level of privileges assigned to the ASDM Launcher. A successful exploit may require the attacker to perform a social engineering attack to persuade the user to initiate communication from the Launcher to the ASDM.",
"id": "GHSA-3fc6-gf75-vvc3",
"modified": "2022-08-17T00:00:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:07:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1585"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jbaines-r7/staystaystay"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-asdm-rce-gqjShXW"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2022/08/11/rapid7-discovered-vulnerabilities-in-cisco-asa-asdm-and-firepower-services-software"
}
],
"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-3FF9-CQQX-JH3Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:52 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:52Multiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in BrowserCRM 5.002.00, when register_globals is enabled, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the bcrm_pub_root parameter to (1) kb.php, (2) login.php, (3) index.php, (4) contact_view.php, and (5) contact.php in pub/, different vectors than CVE-2008-2689. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-2690"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-06-13T19:41:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in BrowserCRM 5.002.00, when register_globals is enabled, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the bcrm_pub_root parameter to (1) kb.php, (2) login.php, (3) index.php, (4) contact_view.php, and (5) contact.php in pub/, different vectors than CVE-2008-2689. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.",
"id": "GHSA-3ff9-cqqx-jh3q",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:52:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:52:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-2690"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/42922"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/30290"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3FG9-62HH-37MH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-19 03:32 – Updated: 2026-09-19 03:32The Save as PDF Plugin by PDFCrowd plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Arbitrary Function Invocation in all versions up to, and including, 4.6.1 via the pdf_created_callback shortcode attribute. The eval_shortcode() function copies any non-button_/non-email_ shortcode attribute verbatim into a custom options array without sanitization, allowlist enforcement, or capability checks, and create_button() AES-encrypts that array — including the attacker-supplied callback value — and embeds the resulting blob in the rendered button HTML; when the blob is later POSTed to the unauthenticated wp_ajax_nopriv_save_as_pdf_pdfcrowd endpoint, save_as_pdf_pdfcrowd() decrypts it and invokes $options['pdf_created_callback'] as a PHP callable at line 1722 with no is_callable() guard, no allowlist, and no capability check. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to invoke arbitrary PHP functions or static class methods with plugin option data as the sole argument, enabling disclosure of the site's stored PDFCrowd API key and username or further server-side abuse. Note that the encryption boundary does not mitigate this vector because the server itself encrypts the attacker-chosen callback during shortcode rendering, supplying any authenticated Contributor with a cryptographically valid blob that any unauthenticated visitor can subsequently replay to trigger invocation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-92807"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-19T03:17:17Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Save as PDF Plugin by PDFCrowd plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Arbitrary Function Invocation in all versions up to, and including, 4.6.1 via the `pdf_created_callback` shortcode attribute. The `eval_shortcode()` function copies any non-`button_`/non-`email_` shortcode attribute verbatim into a custom options array without sanitization, allowlist enforcement, or capability checks, and `create_button()` AES-encrypts that array \u2014 including the attacker-supplied callback value \u2014 and embeds the resulting blob in the rendered button HTML; when the blob is later POSTed to the unauthenticated `wp_ajax_nopriv_save_as_pdf_pdfcrowd` endpoint, `save_as_pdf_pdfcrowd()` decrypts it and invokes `$options[\u0027pdf_created_callback\u0027]` as a PHP callable at line 1722 with no `is_callable()` guard, no allowlist, and no capability check. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to invoke arbitrary PHP functions or static class methods with plugin option data as the sole argument, enabling disclosure of the site\u0027s stored PDFCrowd API key and username or further server-side abuse. Note that the encryption boundary does not mitigate this vector because the server itself encrypts the attacker-chosen callback during shortcode rendering, supplying any authenticated Contributor with a cryptographically valid blob that any unauthenticated visitor can subsequently replay to trigger invocation.",
"id": "GHSA-3fg9-62hh-37mh",
"modified": "2026-09-19T03:32:03Z",
"published": "2026-09-19T03:32:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-92807"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/save-as-pdf-by-pdfcrowd/tags/4.6.1/public/class-save-as-pdf-pdfcrowd-public.php#L157"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/save-as-pdf-by-pdfcrowd/tags/4.6.1/public/class-save-as-pdf-pdfcrowd-public.php#L1722"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/save-as-pdf-by-pdfcrowd/tags/4.6.1/public/class-save-as-pdf-pdfcrowd-public.php#L867"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/save-as-pdf-by-pdfcrowd/tags/4.6.1/public/class-save-as-pdf-pdfcrowd-public.php#L956"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?reponame=\u0026old=3701540%40save-as-pdf-by-pdfcrowd\u0026new=3701540%40save-as-pdf-by-pdfcrowd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/fc87f440-d26e-4535-afe4-c4a97b7c591a?source=cve"
}
],
"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-3FRF-GW23-35MH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:47 – Updated: 2025-04-11 03:39Unspecified vulnerability in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) FastBack 5.5.0.0 through 5.5.6.0 and 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.0.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unknown vectors, aka ZDI-CAN-700. NOTE: this might overlap CVE-2010-3058 or CVE-2010-3059.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-3761"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2010-10-05T22:00:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Unspecified vulnerability in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) FastBack 5.5.0.0 through 5.5.6.0 and 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.0.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unknown vectors, aka ZDI-CAN-700. NOTE: this might overlap CVE-2010-3058 or CVE-2010-3059.",
"id": "GHSA-3frf-gw23-35mh",
"modified": "2025-04-11T03:39:34Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T05:47:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-3761"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IC69883"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21443820"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/upcoming"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3FVR-862M-R48Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-31 12:33 – Updated: 2025-01-31 12:33The The WooCommerce Product Table Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary shortcode execution in all versions up to, and including, 3.9.4. This is due to the software allowing users to execute an action that does not properly validate a value before running do_shortcode. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes. The same 'sc_attrs' parameter is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting as well.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-13472"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-31T10:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The The WooCommerce Product Table Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary shortcode execution in all versions up to, and including, 3.9.4. This is due to the software allowing users to execute an action that does not properly validate a value before running do_shortcode. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes. The same \u0027sc_attrs\u0027 parameter is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting as well.",
"id": "GHSA-3fvr-862m-r48q",
"modified": "2025-01-31T12:33:02Z",
"published": "2025-01-31T12:33:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13472"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wc-product-table-lite/trunk/main.php#L1843"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3231930"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/wc-product-table-lite/#developers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/4f1a1171-3d7b-46a4-982e-fe318e3017b7?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3FX4-R3HW-W575
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 06:48 – Updated: 2022-05-01 06:48Laurentiu Matei eXpandable Home Page (XHP) CMS 0.5 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to use the HTMLArea FileManager plugin to upload and execute arbitrary PHP files using (1) manager.php, (2) standalonemanager.php, and (3) images.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2006-1371"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2006-03-23T23:06:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Laurentiu Matei eXpandable Home Page (XHP) CMS 0.5 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to use the HTMLArea FileManager plugin to upload and execute arbitrary PHP files using (1) manager.php, (2) standalonemanager.php, and (3) images.php.",
"id": "GHSA-3fx4-r3hw-w575",
"modified": "2022-05-01T06:48:49Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T06:48:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2006-1371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/25399"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/1605"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/19353"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.attrition.org/pipermail/vim/2006-March/000649.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.osvdb.org/24058"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.osvdb.org/24059"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/17209"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2006/1052"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://xhp.targetit.ro/index.php?page=3\u0026box_id=34\u0026action=show_single_entry\u0026post_id=10"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3G23-95WX-3CC6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-31 00:30 – Updated: 2023-02-07 15:30Rukovoditel v3.2.1 was discovered to contain a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the component /rukovoditel/index.php?module=dashboard/ajax_request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-48175"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-30T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Rukovoditel v3.2.1 was discovered to contain a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the component /rukovoditel/index.php?module=dashboard/ajax_request.",
"id": "GHSA-3g23-95wx-3cc6",
"modified": "2023-02-07T15:30:26Z",
"published": "2023-01-31T00:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-48175"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/y1s3m0/vulnfind/blob/main/rukovoditel/rce_ajax_request.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"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Strategy: Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Mitigation
- Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
- Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
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.
- To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
Mitigation
Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
Mitigation MIT-32
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
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
For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
CAPEC-242: Code Injection
An adversary exploits a weakness in input validation on the target to inject new code into that which is currently executing. This differs from code inclusion in that code inclusion involves the addition or replacement of a reference to a code file, which is subsequently loaded by the target and used as part of the code of some application.
CAPEC-35: Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files. When the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.