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.
8296 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-GQV4-JGMQ-RFXP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 01:49 – Updated: 2022-05-17 01:49Eval injection vulnerability in zp-core/zp-extensions/viewer_size_image.php in ZENphoto 1.4.2, when the viewer_size_image plugin is enabled, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via the viewer_size_image_saved cookie.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2012-0993"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2012-02-21T13:31:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Eval injection vulnerability in zp-core/zp-extensions/viewer_size_image.php in ZENphoto 1.4.2, when the viewer_size_image plugin is enabled, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via the viewer_size_image_saved cookie.",
"id": "GHSA-gqv4-jgmq-rfxp",
"modified": "2022-05-17T01:49:12Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T01:49:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-0993"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/73081"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.htbridge.ch/advisory/HTB23070"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2012-02/0037.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/47875"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/51916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.zenphoto.org/news/zenphoto-1.4.2.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.zenphoto.org/trac/changeset/8994"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.zenphoto.org/trac/changeset/8995"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GR4H-894Q-P7JP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-04 00:28 – Updated: 2025-04-11 04:03Horde 3.3.12, Horde Groupware 1.2.10, and Horde Groupware Webmail Edition 1.2.10, as distributed by FTP between November 2011 and February 2012, contains an externally introduced modification (Trojan Horse) in templates/javascript/open_calendar.js, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2012-0209"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2012-09-25T22:55:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Horde 3.3.12, Horde Groupware 1.2.10, and Horde Groupware Webmail Edition 1.2.10, as distributed by FTP between November 2011 and February 2012, contains an externally introduced modification (Trojan Horse) in templates/javascript/open_calendar.js, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code.",
"id": "GHSA-gr4h-894q-p7jp",
"modified": "2025-04-11T04:03:01Z",
"published": "2022-05-04T00:28:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-0209"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790877"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://dev.horde.org/h/jonah/stories/view.php?channel_id=1\u0026id=155"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://eromang.zataz.com/2012/02/15/cve-2012-0209-horde-backdoor-analysis"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.horde.org/archives/announce/2012/000751.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.org/files/109874/Horde-3.3.12-Backdoor-Arbitrary-PHP-Code-Execution.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GR67-7V65-6XCW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:20 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:20Cacti before 1.0.0 allows remote authenticated users to conduct PHP object injection attacks and execute arbitrary PHP code via a crafted serialized object, related to calling unserialize(stripslashes()).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-4000"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-11-15T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cacti before 1.0.0 allows remote authenticated users to conduct PHP object injection attacks and execute arbitrary PHP code via a crafted serialized object, related to calling unserialize(stripslashes()).",
"id": "GHSA-gr67-7v65-6xcw",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:20:02Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:20:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-4000"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://forums.cacti.net/viewtopic.php?f=4\u0026t=56794"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-4000"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201711-10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cacti.net/release_notes_1_0_0.php"
}
],
"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-GR6F-XX69-HRGQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-30 21:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 21:30In its design for automatic terminal command execution, HAI Build Code Generator offers two options: Execute safe commands and Execute all commands. The description for the former states that commands determined by the model to be safe will be automatically executed, whereas if the model judges a command to be potentially destructive, it still requires user approval. However, this design is highly susceptible to prompt injection attacks. An attacker can employ a generic template to wrap any malicious command and mislead the model into misclassifying it as a 'safe' command, thereby bypassing the user approval requirement and resulting in arbitrary command execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30308"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-30T21:17:09Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In its design for automatic terminal command execution, HAI Build Code Generator offers two options: Execute safe commands and Execute all commands. The description for the former states that commands determined by the model to be safe will be automatically executed, whereas if the model judges a command to be potentially destructive, it still requires user approval. However, this design is highly susceptible to prompt injection attacks. An attacker can employ a generic template to wrap any malicious command and mislead the model into misclassifying it as a \u0027safe\u0027 command, thereby bypassing the user approval requirement and resulting in arbitrary command execution.",
"id": "GHSA-gr6f-xx69-hrgq",
"modified": "2026-04-01T21:30:26Z",
"published": "2026-03-30T21:31:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30308"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Secsys-FDU/LLM-Tool-Calling-CVEs/issues/10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/presidio-oss/hai-build"
}
],
"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-GR9C-H5PV-HGRP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:26 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:26Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 SP2, 3.5, 3.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.6, and 4.6.1 does not prevent recursive compilation of XSLT transforms, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (performance degradation) via crafted XSLT data, aka ".NET Framework Stack Overflow Denial of Service Vulnerability."
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-0033"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-02-10T11:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 SP2, 3.5, 3.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.6, and 4.6.1 does not prevent recursive compilation of XSLT transforms, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (performance degradation) via crafted XSLT data, aka \".NET Framework Stack Overflow Denial of Service Vulnerability.\"",
"id": "GHSA-gr9c-h5pv-hgrp",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:26:19Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:26:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-0033"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybulletins/2016/ms16-019"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1034983"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GR9W-68PR-98WP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-24 12:30 – Updated: 2024-08-24 12:30The Image Hotspot by DevVN plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.5 via deserialization of untrusted input in the 'devvn_ihotspot_shortcode_func' function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Author-level access and above, to inject a PHP Object. No known POP chain is present in the vulnerable software. If a POP chain is present via an additional plugin or theme installed on the target system, it could allow the attacker to delete arbitrary files, retrieve sensitive data, or execute code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-7656"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-24T12:15:04Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Image Hotspot by DevVN plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.5 via deserialization of untrusted input in the \u0027devvn_ihotspot_shortcode_func\u0027 function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Author-level access and above, to inject a PHP Object. No known POP chain is present in the vulnerable software. If a POP chain is present via an additional plugin or theme installed on the target system, it could allow the attacker to delete arbitrary files, retrieve sensitive data, or execute code.",
"id": "GHSA-gr9w-68pr-98wp",
"modified": "2024-08-24T12:30:46Z",
"published": "2024-08-24T12:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7656"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/devvn-image-hotspot/trunk/admin/inc/add_shortcode_devvn_ihotspot.php#L16"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3139899"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/624bdb9e-6c50-4a00-9a04-1a32c938d48b?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-GRJ5-8FX9-RJQ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-01 18:30 – Updated: 2025-07-01 18:30A remote code execution vulnerability exists in HPE Insight Remote Support (IRS) prior to v7.15.0.646.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-37099"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-01T18:15:24Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A remote code execution vulnerability exists in HPE Insight Remote Support (IRS) prior to v7.15.0.646.",
"id": "GHSA-grj5-8fx9-rjq9",
"modified": "2025-07-01T18:30:37Z",
"published": "2025-07-01T18:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-37099"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbgn04878en_us\u0026docLocale=en_US"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GRJ5-JJM8-H35P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-04 16:29 – Updated: 2026-05-08 01:25Summary
VM2 suffers from a sandbox breakout vulnerability. This allows attackers to write code which can escape from the VM2 sandbox and execute arbitrary commands on the host system.
Details
The __lookupGetter__ method allows to read the getter of an object. It is special in VM2 since it will switch between the host and sandbox version of the method when passed to the other context.
This allows to access getters on an object in the host context if the method is called from the host context which can be achieved by using the host apply method which can be accessed through Buffer.apply.
Afterwards, this function can be used to call the host version of __lookupGetter__ with Buffer and __proto__ resulting in the prototype lookup method from the host context.
With this method the hosts Function.prototype object can be retrieved and the host Function acquired through the constructor property which allows to create and run code in the host context.
This issue was attempted to be fixed with https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/blob/4b009c2d4b1131c01810c1205e641d614c322a29/lib/bridge.js#L427. However, this can be circumvented by using Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor to get the constructor property.
PoC
The following code demonstrates this issue by acquiring the host process object and executing touch pwned.
const {VM} = require("vm2");
const vm = new VM();
vm.run(`
const g = ({}).__lookupGetter__;
const a = Buffer.apply;
const p = a.apply(g, [Buffer, ['__proto__']]);
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(p.call(a),'constructor').value('return process')().mainModule.require('child_process').execSync('touch pwned');
`);
Impact
Attackers can perform Remote Code Execution under the assumption that arbitrary code can be executed inside the context of a vm2 sandbox.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.10.4"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vm2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24118"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-04T16:29:15Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-04T17:16:21Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nVM2 suffers from a sandbox breakout vulnerability. This allows attackers to write code which can escape from the VM2 sandbox and execute arbitrary commands on the host system.\n\n### Details\n\nThe `__lookupGetter__` method allows to read the getter of an object. It is special in VM2 since it will switch between the host and sandbox version of the method when passed to the other context.\nThis allows to access getters on an object in the host context if the method is called from the host context which can be achieved by using the host `apply` method which can be accessed through `Buffer.apply`.\nAfterwards, this function can be used to call the host version of `__lookupGetter__` with `Buffer` and `__proto__` resulting in the prototype lookup method from the host context.\nWith this method the hosts `Function.prototype` object can be retrieved and the host `Function` acquired through the `constructor` property which allows to create and run code in the host context.\nThis issue was attempted to be fixed with https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/blob/4b009c2d4b1131c01810c1205e641d614c322a29/lib/bridge.js#L427. However, this can be circumvented by using `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` to get the `constructor` property.\n\n### PoC\n\nThe following code demonstrates this issue by acquiring the host process object and executing `touch pwned`.\n\n```js\nconst {VM} = require(\"vm2\");\nconst vm = new VM();\nvm.run(`\nconst g = ({}).__lookupGetter__;\nconst a = Buffer.apply;\nconst p = a.apply(g, [Buffer, [\u0027__proto__\u0027]]);\nObject.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(p.call(a),\u0027constructor\u0027).value(\u0027return process\u0027)().mainModule.require(\u0027child_process\u0027).execSync(\u0027touch pwned\u0027);\n`);\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nAttackers can perform Remote Code Execution under the assumption that arbitrary code can be executed inside the context of a vm2 sandbox.",
"id": "GHSA-grj5-jjm8-h35p",
"modified": "2026-05-08T01:25:03Z",
"published": "2026-05-04T16:29:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/security/advisories/GHSA-grj5-jjm8-h35p"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24118"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/commit/2b5f3e3a060d9088f5e1cdd585d683d491f990a3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/commit/f9b700b1c7d9ef2df416666cb24e0b659140cc74"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/releases/tag/v3.11.0"
}
],
"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": "VM2 Sandbox Breakout Through __lookupGetter__"
}
GHSA-GRPQ-V752-9MJQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 17:51 – Updated: 2025-04-09 03:38Eval injection vulnerability in the (a) kmz_ImportWithMesh.py Script for Blender 0.1.9h, as used in (b) Blender before 2.43, allows user-assisted remote attackers to execute arbitrary Python code by importing a crafted (1) KML or (2) KMZ file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2007-1253"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2007-03-03T20:19:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Eval injection vulnerability in the (a) kmz_ImportWithMesh.py Script for Blender 0.1.9h, as used in (b) Blender before 2.43, allows user-assisted remote attackers to execute arbitrary Python code by importing a crafted (1) KML or (2) KMZ file.",
"id": "GHSA-grpq-v752-9mjq",
"modified": "2025-04-09T03:38:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T17:51:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-1253"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/32778"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/33836"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/24232"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/24233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/24991"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/secunia_research/2007-39/advisory"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/secunia_research/2007-40/advisory"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-200704-19.xml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/22770"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id?1017714"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2007/0798"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GRRH-62PC-382R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:15 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:15KMail since version 5.3.0 used a QWebEngine based viewer that had JavaScript enabled. HTML Mail contents were not sanitized for JavaScript and included code was executed.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-7968"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-12-23T22:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "KMail since version 5.3.0 used a QWebEngine based viewer that had JavaScript enabled. HTML Mail contents were not sanitized for JavaScript and included code was executed.",
"id": "GHSA-grrh-62pc-382r",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:15:15Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:15:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-7968"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20161006-3.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/10/05/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93360"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"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.