CWE-77
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
5385 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-757R-G2XF-HJWW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-01 18:36 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco IMC could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with read-only privileges to perform command injection attacks on an affected system and execute arbitrary commands as the root user.
This vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted commands to the web-based management interface of the affected software. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system as the root user.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-20094"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-01T17:28:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco IMC could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with read-only privileges to perform command injection attacks on an affected system and execute arbitrary commands as the root user.\n\nThis vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted commands to the web-based management interface of the affected software. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system as the root user.",
"id": "GHSA-757r-g2xf-hjww",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:37Z",
"published": "2026-04-01T18:36:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-20094"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-cimc-cmd-inj-3hKN3bVt"
}
],
"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-7585-2MWM-5JVF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:46 – Updated: 2022-05-28 00:00The text-to-speech engine in libretro RetroArch for Windows 0.11 passes unsanitized input to PowerShell through platform_win32.c via the accessibility_speak_windows function, which allows attackers who have write access on filesystems that are used by RetroArch to execute code via command injection using specially a crafted file and directory names.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28927"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-07T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The text-to-speech engine in libretro RetroArch for Windows 0.11 passes unsanitized input to PowerShell through platform_win32.c via the accessibility_speak_windows function, which allows attackers who have write access on filesystems that are used by RetroArch to execute code via command injection using specially a crafted file and directory names.",
"id": "GHSA-7585-2mwm-5jvf",
"modified": "2022-05-28T00:00:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:46:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28927"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/libretro/RetroArch/blob/d3dc3ee989ec6a4903c689907ffc47027f71f776/frontend/drivers/platform_win32.c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://labs.bishopfox.com/advisories/retroarch-for-windows-version-1.9.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://libretro.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://retroarch.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-75HJ-4XCC-Q3QW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:28 – Updated: 2022-10-08 00:00Multiple camera devices by UDP Technology, Geutebrück and other vendors are vulnerable to command injection, which may allow an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-33548"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-13T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple camera devices by UDP Technology, Geutebr\u00c3\u00bcck and other vendors are vulnerable to command injection, which may allow an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code.",
"id": "GHSA-75hj-4xcc-q3qw",
"modified": "2022-10-08T00:00:18Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T22:28:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33548"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-21-208-03"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.randorisec.fr/fr/udp-technology-ip-camera-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"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-75MQ-3GF9-64WC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-09 18:31 – Updated: 2026-01-12 18:30A Command Injection Vulnerability has been discovered in the DHCP daemon service of D-Link DIR895LA1 v102b07. The vulnerability exists in the lease renewal processing logic where the DHCP hostname parameter is directly concatenated into a system command without proper sanitization. When a DHCP client renews an existing lease with a malicious hostname, arbitrary commands can be executed with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-69542"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-09T17:15:54Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A Command Injection Vulnerability has been discovered in the DHCP daemon service of D-Link DIR895LA1 v102b07. The vulnerability exists in the lease renewal processing logic where the DHCP hostname parameter is directly concatenated into a system command without proper sanitization. When a DHCP client renews an existing lease with a malicious hostname, arbitrary commands can be executed with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-75mq-3gf9-64wc",
"modified": "2026-01-12T18:30:29Z",
"published": "2026-01-09T18:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-69542"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tzh00203.notion.site/D-Link-DIR895LA1-v102b07-Command-Injection-in-DHCPd-2d4b5c52018a80a1a5ccfb317b308861?source=copy_link"
}
],
"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-75RQ-26MW-G7FP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-20 15:30 – Updated: 2023-01-26 18:30TOTOlink A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the FileName parameter in the setting/setOpenVpnCertGenerationCfg function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-48124"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-20T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "TOTOlink A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the FileName parameter in the setting/setOpenVpnCertGenerationCfg function.",
"id": "GHSA-75rq-26mw-g7fp",
"modified": "2023-01-26T18:30:48Z",
"published": "2023-01-20T15:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-48124"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Am1ngl/ttt/tree/main/14"
}
],
"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-75VR-RXGP-H26F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-25 09:32 – Updated: 2024-03-25 09:32Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') vulnerability in openEuler A-Tune-Collector on Linux allows Command Injection. This vulnerability is associated with program files https://gitee.Com/openeuler/A-Tune-Collector/blob/master/atune_collector/plugin/monitor/process/sched.Py.
This issue affects A-Tune-Collector: from 1.1.0-3 through 1.3.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-24897"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"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 a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability in openEuler A-Tune-Collector on Linux allows Command Injection. This vulnerability is associated with program files https://gitee.Com/openeuler/A-Tune-Collector/blob/master/atune_collector/plugin/monitor/process/sched.Py.\n\nThis issue affects A-Tune-Collector: from 1.1.0-3 through 1.3.0.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-75vr-rxgp-h26f",
"modified": "2024-03-25T09:32:34Z",
"published": "2024-03-25T09:32:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-24897"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/A-Tune-Collector/pulls/45"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/A-Tune-Collector/pulls/47"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2024-1271"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2024-1273"
}
],
"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-75W2-QV55-X7FV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-23 21:30 – Updated: 2023-11-30 22:05The openssl (aka node-openssl) NPM package through 2.0.0 was characterized as "a nonsense wrapper with no real purpose" by its author, and accepts an opts argument that contains a verb field (used for command execution). NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openssl"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-49210"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-11-27T23:23:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-23T20:15:07Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The openssl (aka node-openssl) NPM package through 2.0.0 was characterized as \"a nonsense wrapper with no real purpose\" by its author, and accepts an opts argument that contains a verb field (used for command execution). NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.",
"id": "GHSA-75w2-qv55-x7fv",
"modified": "2023-11-30T22:05:44Z",
"published": "2023-11-23T21:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-49210"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/mcoimbra/b05a55a5760172dccaa0a827647ad63e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ossf/malicious-packages/tree/main/malicious/npm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/package/openssl"
}
],
"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": "openssl npm package vulnerable to command execution"
}
GHSA-75W5-MJ4M-G8R4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-26 00:03 – Updated: 2022-08-27 00:00TOTOLINK N350RT V9.3.5u.6139_B20201216 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the host_time parameter in the function NTPSyncWithHost.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36479"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-25T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK N350RT V9.3.5u.6139_B20201216 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the host_time parameter in the function NTPSyncWithHost.",
"id": "GHSA-75w5-mj4m-g8r4",
"modified": "2022-08-27T00:00:55Z",
"published": "2022-08-26T00:03:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36479"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Darry-lang1/vuln/tree/main/TOTOLINK/N350RT/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-75XQ-5H9V-W6PX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-04 22:04 – Updated: 2026-05-14 20:49Summary
Symbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands.
Details
Symbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a "\" prefix. Vulnerable versions of Net::IMAP sends the symbol name directly to the socket, with no validation.
Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid flag characters, including SP and CRLF, which could be used to finish the current command and inject new commands.
Although IMAP flag arguments are only valid input for a few IMAP commands, most Net::IMAP commands use generic argument handling, and will allow Symbol (flag) inputs.
Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP keyword syntax, which are sent as atoms, i.e: string inputs. Under no circumstances should #to_sym ever be called on unvetted user-provided input: that will always be a bug in the calling code for the simple reason that user_input_atom is as \user_input_atom.
For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context.
Impact
If a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like DELETE mailbox).
Mitigation
- Upgrade to a version of Net::IMAP that validates Symbols are valid as an IMAP
flag. - User-provided input should never be able to control calling
#to_symon string arguments.
For example, do not unsafely serialize and deserialize command arguments (e.g. with YAML or Marshal) in a way that could create unvetted Symbol arguments.
* For the few IMAP commands which do allow flag arguments, it may be appropriate to hard-code Symbol arguments or restrict them to an enumerated list which is valid for the calling application.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.6.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "net-imap"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.6.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.5.13"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "net-imap"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.5.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.4.23"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "net-imap"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.4.24"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42258"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-93"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-04T22:04:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-09T20:16:28Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nSymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands.\n\n### Details\n\nSymbol arguments represent IMAP \"system flags\", which are formatted as \"atoms\" (with no quoting) with a `\"\\\"` prefix. Vulnerable versions of Net::IMAP sends the symbol name directly to the socket, with no validation.\n\nBecause the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid `flag` characters, including `SP` and `CRLF`, which could be used to finish the current command and inject new commands.\n\nAlthough IMAP `flag` arguments are only valid input for a few IMAP commands, most Net::IMAP commands use generic argument handling, and will allow Symbol (`flag`) inputs.\n\nNote also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard \"system flags\" needs to use the IMAP `keyword` syntax, which are sent as atoms, i.e: string inputs. Under no circumstances should `#to_sym` ever be called on unvetted user-provided input: that will always be a bug in the calling code for the simple reason that `user_input_atom` is as `\\user_input_atom`.\n\nFor forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context.\n\n### Impact\n\nIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like `DELETE mailbox`).\n\n### Mitigation\n* Upgrade to a version of Net::IMAP that validates Symbols are valid as an IMAP `flag`.\n* User-provided input should never be able to control calling `#to_sym` on string arguments.\n\n For example, do not unsafely serialize and deserialize command arguments (e.g. with YAML or Marshal) in a way that could create unvetted Symbol arguments.\n* For the few IMAP commands which do allow `flag` arguments, it may be appropriate to hard-code Symbol arguments or restrict them to an enumerated list which is valid for the calling application.",
"id": "GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px",
"modified": "2026-05-14T20:49:03Z",
"published": "2026-05-04T22:04:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/security/advisories/GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42258"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/commit/6bf02aef7e0b5931010c36e377f79a71636b306b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/commit/9db3e9d60bfb8f3735ea95015bf8a700f4af9cbb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/commit/aec06996eb87a7e1bbcef1f9f8926e8add2b8c71"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/releases/tag/v0.4.24"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/releases/tag/v0.5.14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/releases/tag/v0.6.4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/net-imap/CVE-2026-42258.yml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs"
}
GHSA-7623-88V7-H6QF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-07 18:30 – Updated: 2023-12-09 06:30Tenda AX9 V22.03.01.46 has been discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the 'mac' parameter at /goform/SetOnlineDevName.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-49431"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-07T16:15:07Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda AX9 V22.03.01.46 has been discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the \u0027mac\u0027 parameter at /goform/SetOnlineDevName.",
"id": "GHSA-7623-88v7-h6qf",
"modified": "2023-12-09T06:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-12-07T18:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-49431"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ef4tless/vuln/blob/master/iot/AX9/SetOnlineDevName.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
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation
Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
Mitigation
Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CAPEC-136: LDAP Injection
An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-183: IMAP/SMTP Command Injection
An adversary exploits weaknesses in input validation on web-mail servers to execute commands on the IMAP/SMTP server. Web-mail servers often sit between the Internet and the IMAP or SMTP mail server. User requests are received by the web-mail servers which then query the back-end mail server for the requested information and return this response to the user. In an IMAP/SMTP command injection attack, mail-server commands are embedded in parts of the request sent to the web-mail server. If the web-mail server fails to adequately sanitize these requests, these commands are then sent to the back-end mail server when it is queried by the web-mail server, where the commands are then executed. This attack can be especially dangerous since administrators may assume that the back-end server is protected against direct Internet access and therefore may not secure it adequately against the execution of malicious commands.
CAPEC-248: Command Injection
An adversary looking to execute a command of their choosing, injects new items into an existing command thus modifying interpretation away from what was intended. Commands in this context are often standalone strings that are interpreted by a downstream component and cause specific responses. This type of attack is possible when untrusted values are used to build these command strings. Weaknesses in input validation or command construction can enable the attack and lead to successful exploitation.
CAPEC-40: Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices
This attack exploits terminal devices that allow themselves to be written to by other users. The attacker sends command strings to the target terminal device hoping that the target user will hit enter and thereby execute the malicious command with their privileges. The attacker can send the results (such as copying /etc/passwd) to a known directory and collect once the attack has succeeded.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-75: Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.