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.
5383 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-89CH-PGH2-WJG9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-05 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:49Tenda AC18 v15.03.05.19(6318_)_cn was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the deviceName parameter in the setUsbUnload function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-30135"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-05T02:15:08Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda AC18 v15.03.05.19(6318_)_cn was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the deviceName parameter in the setUsbUnload function.",
"id": "GHSA-89ch-pgh2-wjg9",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:49:23Z",
"published": "2023-05-05T03:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-30135"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/DrizzlingSun/Tenda/blob/main/AC18/8/8.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"
}
]
}
GHSA-89GF-MHC4-X76W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-25 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-28 00:00Tenda i9 v1.0.0.8(3828) was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the FormexeCommand function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-40100"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-23T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda i9 v1.0.0.8(3828) was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the FormexeCommand function.",
"id": "GHSA-89gf-mhc4-x76w",
"modified": "2022-09-28T00:00:25Z",
"published": "2022-09-25T00:00:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-40100"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/splashsc/IOT_Vulnerability_Discovery/blob/main/Tenda/Tenda_i9/Command_Injection_formexeCommand.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"
}
]
}
GHSA-89PH-WR9X-HCFC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-10 03:30 – Updated: 2024-01-17 03:30In Cassia Gateway firmware XC1000_2.1.1.2303082218 and XC2000_2.1.1.2303090947, the queueUrl parameter in /bypass/config is not sanitized. This leads to injecting Bash code and executing it with root privileges on device startup.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-31446"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-10T03:15:43Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In Cassia Gateway firmware XC1000_2.1.1.2303082218 and XC2000_2.1.1.2303090947, the queueUrl parameter in /bypass/config is not sanitized. This leads to injecting Bash code and executing it with root privileges on device startup.",
"id": "GHSA-89ph-wr9x-hcfc",
"modified": "2024-01-17T03:30:55Z",
"published": "2024-01-10T03:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-31446"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.kscsc.online/cves/202331446/md.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Dodge-MPTC/CVE-2023-31446-Remote-Code-Execution"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cassianetworks.com"
}
],
"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-89VC-QMFW-48WJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-01 21:30 – Updated: 2024-08-28 21:31An issue discovered in Alldata v0.4.6 allows attacker to run arbitrary commands via the processId parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-29435"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-01T20:15:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue discovered in Alldata v0.4.6 allows attacker to run arbitrary commands via the processId parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-89vc-qmfw-48wj",
"modified": "2024-08-28T21:31:27Z",
"published": "2024-04-01T21:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-29435"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/Raybye/ea3a46adc5ea51e659c42218f05153fa"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8C3F-X5F9-6H62
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-09-02 17:08 – Updated: 2021-08-26 14:39The @diez/generation npm package is a client for Diez. The locateFont method of @diez/generation has a command injection vulnerability. Clients of the @diez/generation library are unlikely to be aware of this, so they might unwittingly write code that contains a vulnerability. This issue may lead to remote code execution if a client of the library calls the vulnerable method with untrusted input. All versions of this package are vulnerable as of the writing of this CVE.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@diez/generation"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "10.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-32830"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-08-19T20:09:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-17T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "The `@diez/generation` npm package is a client for Diez. The locateFont method of @diez/generation has a command injection vulnerability. Clients of the @diez/generation library are unlikely to be aware of this, so they might unwittingly write code that contains a vulnerability. This issue may lead to remote code execution if a client of the library calls the vulnerable method with untrusted input. All versions of this package are vulnerable as of the writing of this CVE.",
"id": "GHSA-8c3f-x5f9-6h62",
"modified": "2021-08-26T14:39:22Z",
"published": "2021-09-02T17:08:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-32830"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/diez/diez"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://securitylab.github.com/advisories/GHSL-2021-061-diez-generation-cmd-injection"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/package/@diez/generation"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Command injection in @diez/generation"
}
GHSA-8C6J-FFMF-Q6VM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 00:54 – Updated: 2023-11-01 19:47Apache Struts 2.3.19 to 2.3.20.2, 2.3.21 to 2.3.24.1, and 2.3.25 to 2.3.28, when Dynamic Method Invocation is enabled, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via method: prefix, related to chained expressions.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.3.20.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.struts:struts2-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.3.19"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.20.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.3.24.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.struts:struts2-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.3.21"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.24.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.3.28"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.struts:struts2-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.3.25"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.28.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-3081"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-28T21:21:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2016-04-26T14:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Apache Struts 2.3.19 to 2.3.20.2, 2.3.21 to 2.3.24.1, and 2.3.25 to 2.3.28, when Dynamic Method Invocation is enabled, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via method: prefix, related to chained expressions.",
"id": "GHSA-8c6j-ffmf-q6vm",
"modified": "2023-11-01T19:47:28Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T00:54:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-3081"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/struts"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://struts.apache.org/docs/s2-032.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210123152457/http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/91787"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210225192113/http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/87327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210226011418/http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1035665"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/39756"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/136856/Apache-Struts-2.3.28-Dynamic-Method-Invocation-Remote-Code-Execution.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20160527-01-struts2-en"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2016-2881720.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2016-2881722.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.rapid7.com/db/modules/exploit/linux/http/struts_dmi_exec"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.rapid7.com/db/modules/exploit/multi/http/struts_dmi_exec"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Apache Struts RCE Vulnerability"
}
GHSA-8C78-WF5J-V7JX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-18 09:31 – Updated: 2025-06-24 18:33Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') vulnerability in Apache HertzBeat (incubating).
This vulnerability can only be exploited by authorized attackers. This issue affects Apache HertzBeat (incubating): before 1.6.1.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.6.1, which fixes the issue.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45505"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-18T09:15:05Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability in Apache HertzBeat (incubating).\n\nThis vulnerability can only be exploited by authorized attackers.\nThis issue affects Apache HertzBeat (incubating): before 1.6.1.\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 1.6.1, which fixes the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-8c78-wf5j-v7jx",
"modified": "2025-06-24T18:33:08Z",
"published": "2024-11-18T09:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45505"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/gvbc68krhqhht7mkkkx7k13k6k6fdhy0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8k14o1bfyod66p113pkgnt1s52p6p19"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/11/16/4"
}
],
"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-8C9G-VJX9-CF8F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-16 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-21 00:00TOTOLINK-720R v4.1.5cu.374 was discovered to contain a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability via the setdiagnosicfg function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-38534"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-15T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK-720R v4.1.5cu.374 was discovered to contain a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability via the setdiagnosicfg function.",
"id": "GHSA-8c9g-vjx9-cf8f",
"modified": "2022-09-21T00:00:52Z",
"published": "2022-09-16T00:00:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-38534"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Jfox816/TOTOLINK-720R/blob/fb6ba109ba9c5bd1b0d8e22c88ee14bdc4a75e6b/TOTOLINK%20720%20RCode%20Execution.md"
}
],
"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-8C9Q-7855-WFXQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-12 22:52 – Updated: 2026-06-12 22:52[!NOTE] This feature has been disabled by default for all installations from v2.33.8 onwards, including for existent installations. To exploit this vulnerability, the instance administrator must turn on a feature and ignore all the warnings about known vulnerabilities. We're publishing this new advisory to make it clear that all vulnerabilities concerning this feature are disclosed.
For more information about tracking vulnerability issues related to the Command Execution features, check https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/issues/5199.
Summary
When a shell interpreter is configured (e.g. /bin/sh -c), the command allowlist can be bypassed through shell metacharacters. The allowlist validates only the first token of user input, but the entire raw string is handed to the shell — semicolons, pipes, backticks, and $() all work to chain arbitrary commands after a permitted one.
This is a distinct issue from CVE-2025-52995 (regex partial matching, fixed in 2.33.10) and CVE-2025-52903 (GTFOBins-style subcommands). The slices.Contains fix does not prevent this bypass.
Affected Location
runner/parser.go, functionParseCommand(lines 10-25)http/commands.go, functioncommandsHandler(lines 72-86)
Root Cause
ParseCommand extracts the first token via SplitCommandAndArgs for the allowlist check, then passes the entire raw input to the shell:
func ParseCommand(s *settings.Settings, raw string) (command []string, name string, err error) {
name, args, err := SplitCommandAndArgs(raw)
if len(s.Shell) == 0 || s.Shell[0] == "" {
command = append(command, name)
command = append(command, args...)
} else {
command = append(command, s.Shell...)
command = append(command, raw) // full user input, metacharacters included
}
return command, name, nil
}
In commandsHandler:
if !slices.Contains(d.user.Commands, name) { // name = "ls", passes
// reject
}
cmd := exec.Command(command[0], command[1:]...)
// actually executes: /bin/sh -c "ls; id; cat /etc/shadow"
name is ls — allowed. But /bin/sh -c interprets the rest.
PoC
Prerequisites:
- Command execution enabled (--disable-exec=false)
- Shell configured to /bin/sh -c
- User has Execute permission with an allowlist, e.g. git,ls,cat
Steps:
- Log in, grab a JWT:
POST /api/login
{"username":"admin","password":"..."}
-
Open a WebSocket to
/api/command/with headerX-Auth: <jwt>. -
Send:
ls; id; whoami; cat /etc/passwd
- All four commands execute and output is returned. Sending just
whoamialone returns "Command not allowed." — the allowlist is active but bypassable.
Output:
bin
etc
home
...
===BYPASS===
uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root),10(wheel)
root
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/sh
Tested against commit d236f1c (frontend v3.0.0) on the official Docker image filebrowser/filebrowser:latest.
Impact
Any user with Execute permission and at least one allowed command can run arbitrary OS commands at the privilege level of the server process. In the default container this is root.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.33.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54090"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-184",
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-12T22:52:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "\u003e [!NOTE]\n\u003e **This feature has been disabled by default for all installations from v2.33.8 onwards, including for existent installations**. To exploit this vulnerability, the instance administrator must turn on a feature and ignore all the warnings about known vulnerabilities. We\u0027re publishing this new advisory to make it clear that all vulnerabilities concerning this feature are disclosed.\n\u003e\n\u003e For more information about tracking vulnerability issues related to the Command Execution features, check https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/issues/5199.\n\n## Summary\n\nWhen a shell interpreter is configured (e.g. `/bin/sh -c`), the command allowlist can be bypassed through shell metacharacters. The allowlist validates only the first token of user input, but the entire raw string is handed to the shell \u2014 semicolons, pipes, backticks, and `$()` all work to chain arbitrary commands after a permitted one.\n\nThis is a distinct issue from CVE-2025-52995 (regex partial matching, fixed in 2.33.10) and CVE-2025-52903 (GTFOBins-style subcommands). The `slices.Contains` fix does not prevent this bypass.\n\n## Affected Location\n\n- `runner/parser.go`, function `ParseCommand` (lines 10-25)\n- `http/commands.go`, function `commandsHandler` (lines 72-86)\n\n## Root Cause\n\n`ParseCommand` extracts the first token via `SplitCommandAndArgs` for the allowlist check, then passes the entire raw input to the shell:\n\n```go\nfunc ParseCommand(s *settings.Settings, raw string) (command []string, name string, err error) {\n name, args, err := SplitCommandAndArgs(raw)\n if len(s.Shell) == 0 || s.Shell[0] == \"\" {\n command = append(command, name)\n command = append(command, args...)\n } else {\n command = append(command, s.Shell...)\n command = append(command, raw) // full user input, metacharacters included\n }\n return command, name, nil\n}\n```\n\nIn `commandsHandler`:\n\n```go\nif !slices.Contains(d.user.Commands, name) { // name = \"ls\", passes\n // reject\n}\ncmd := exec.Command(command[0], command[1:]...)\n// actually executes: /bin/sh -c \"ls; id; cat /etc/shadow\"\n```\n\n`name` is `ls` \u2014 allowed. But `/bin/sh -c` interprets the rest.\n\n## PoC\n\nPrerequisites:\n- Command execution enabled (`--disable-exec=false`)\n- Shell configured to `/bin/sh -c`\n- User has Execute permission with an allowlist, e.g. `git,ls,cat`\n\nSteps:\n\n1. Log in, grab a JWT:\n\n```\nPOST /api/login\n{\"username\":\"admin\",\"password\":\"...\"}\n```\n\n2. Open a WebSocket to `/api/command/` with header `X-Auth: \u003cjwt\u003e`.\n\n3. Send:\n\n```\nls; id; whoami; cat /etc/passwd\n```\n\n4. All four commands execute and output is returned. Sending just `whoami` alone returns \"Command not allowed.\" \u2014 the allowlist is active but bypassable.\n\nOutput:\n\n```\nbin\netc\nhome\n...\n===BYPASS===\nuid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root),10(wheel)\nroot\nroot:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/sh\n```\n\nTested against commit `d236f1c` (frontend v3.0.0) on the official Docker image `filebrowser/filebrowser:latest`.\n\n## Impact\n\nAny user with Execute permission and at least one allowed command can run arbitrary OS commands at the privilege level of the server process. In the default container this is root.",
"id": "GHSA-8c9q-7855-wfxq",
"modified": "2026-06-12T22:52:11Z",
"published": "2026-06-12T22:52:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/security/advisories/GHSA-8c9q-7855-wfxq"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/issues/5199"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "File Browser has a Command Execution Allowlist Bypass via Shell Metacharacter Injection"
}
GHSA-8CJF-HJFF-67Q2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-13 06:30 – Updated: 2026-04-13 06:30A security flaw has been discovered in Totolink A7100RU 7.4cu.2313_b20191024. The affected element is the function setWizardCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument wizard results in os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-6154"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-13T04:16:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A security flaw has been discovered in Totolink A7100RU 7.4cu.2313_b20191024. The affected element is the function setWizardCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument wizard results in os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-8cjf-hjff-67q2",
"modified": "2026-04-13T06:30:30Z",
"published": "2026-04-13T06:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-6154"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Litengzheng/vuldb_new/blob/main/A7100RU/vul_194/README.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/792990"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/357034"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/357034/cti"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.totolink.net"
}
],
"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:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
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.