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-8MVM-QVC9-QRC9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:12 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:12cloner.functions.php in the XCloner plugin 3.1.2 for WordPress allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via a file containing filenames with shell metacharacters, as demonstrated by using the backup comments feature to create the file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-4336"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-06-17T18:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "cloner.functions.php in the XCloner plugin 3.1.2 for WordPress allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via a file containing filenames with shell metacharacters, as demonstrated by using the backup comments feature to create the file.",
"id": "GHSA-8mvm-qvc9-qrc9",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:12:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:12:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-4336"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/132107/WordPress-XCloner-3.1.2-XSS-Command-Execution.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/74943"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vapid.dhs.org/advisory.php?v=121"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8MVR-HQM9-FQRF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-10 00:30 – Updated: 2026-01-10 00:30A vulnerability has been found in Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management System up to 3.0.8. This vulnerability affects the function uploadCN of the file VersionController.java. The manipulation of the argument filename leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-15499"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-09T22:15:58Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management System up to 3.0.8. This vulnerability affects the function uploadCN of the file VersionController.java. The manipulation of the argument filename leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-8mvr-hqm9-fqrf",
"modified": "2026-01-10T00:30:30Z",
"published": "2026-01-10T00:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-15499"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/master-abc/cve/issues/10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/master-abc/cve/issues/10#issue-3770540830"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.340344"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.340344"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.727207"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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/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"
}
]
}
GHSA-8MVV-3XXR-4JVF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-27 00:01 – Updated: 2022-01-05 00:01Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user . This affects RAX200 before 1.0.3.106, RAX75 before 1.0.3.106, RAX80 before 1.0.3.106, RBK752 before 3.2.16.6, RBR750 before 3.2.16.6, RBS750 before 3.2.16.6, RBK852 before 3.2.16.6, RBR850 before 3.2.16.6, and RBS850 before 3.2.16.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-45537"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-12-26T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an authenticated user . This affects RAX200 before 1.0.3.106, RAX75 before 1.0.3.106, RAX80 before 1.0.3.106, RBK752 before 3.2.16.6, RBR750 before 3.2.16.6, RBS750 before 3.2.16.6, RBK852 before 3.2.16.6, RBR850 before 3.2.16.6, and RBS850 before 3.2.16.6.",
"id": "GHSA-8mvv-3xxr-4jvf",
"modified": "2022-01-05T00:01:38Z",
"published": "2021-12-27T00:01:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-45537"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.netgear.com/000064083/Security-Advisory-for-Post-Authentication-Command-Injection-on-Some-Routers-and-WiFi-Systems-PSV-2020-0061"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8MXG-X6W2-J2J7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-12 21:31 – Updated: 2025-11-12 21:31Dell SmartFabric OS10 Software, versions prior to 10.6.1.0, contain an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Command execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-46427"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-12T20:15:42Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Dell SmartFabric OS10 Software, versions prior to 10.6.1.0, contain an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Command execution.",
"id": "GHSA-8mxg-x6w2-j2j7",
"modified": "2025-11-12T21:31:08Z",
"published": "2025-11-12T21:31:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-46427"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000391062/dsa-2025-407-security-update-for-dell-networking-os10-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"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-8P34-64R3-MWG8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 18:36 – Updated: 2026-07-06 22:53Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals.
Details
Raw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the LITERAL+, LITERAL-, or IMAP4rev2 capabilities. But raw data arguments do not verify server support for non-synchronizing literals prior to sending.
Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a "}\r\n" byte sequence but can't parse the literal bytesize, it may cautiously decide to close the connection, blocking any command injection attacks. However, a server without support for non-synchronizing literals may instead interpret the "+}\r\n" as the end of a malformed command line and respond with a tagged BAD. In that case, the contents of the literal will be interpreted as one or more new pipelined commands, allowing a CRLF command injection attack to succeed.
This affects the following commands' string arguments:
* criteria for #search and #uid_search
* search_keys for #sort, #thread, #uid_sort, and #uid_thread
* attr for #fetch and #uid_fetch
Prior to net-imap v0.6.4, v0.5.14, and v0.4.24, raw data arguments were not validated in any way, so they were also vulnerable to this attack. See CVE-2026-42257 (GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg).
Impact
Fortunately, LITERAL- is supported by most modern IMAP servers. Even without support for non-synchronizing literals, cautious servers may handle invalid literal bytesize by closing the connection . However, servers which handle a non-synchronizing literal just like any other malformed command will enable this vulnerability.
If a developer passes an unvalidated user-controlled input for one of these method arguments, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like DELETE mailbox). Although this does not directly enable data exfiltration, it could be combined with other attack vectors or knowledge of the target system's attributes, e.g.: shared mail folders or the application's installed response handlers.
Mitigation
Update to a version of net-imap which validates server support for non-synchronizing literals before sending them.
If upgrading net-imap is not possible:
* Explicitly validate user-controlled inputs to prevent embedded non-synchronizing literals unless the server supports them.
* For a simpler, more cautious approach: all embedded literals can be unconditionally prohibited, by checking that string inputs do not contain any CR or LF bytes.
* Verify that the server advertises any of the LITERAL+, LITERAL-, or IMAP4rev2 capabilities before using untrusted string inputs for the affected "raw data" arguments.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.6.4"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "net-imap"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.6.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.4.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.5.14"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "net-imap"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.5.15"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-47240"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-93"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-09T18:36:04Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-22T21:16:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Several Net::IMAP commands accept a \"raw data\" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals.\n\n### Details\n\nRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the `LITERAL+`, `LITERAL-`, or `IMAP4rev2` capabilities. But raw data arguments do not verify server support for non-synchronizing literals prior to sending.\n\nServers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a `\"}\\r\\n\"` byte sequence but can\u0027t parse the literal bytesize, it _may_ cautiously decide to close the connection, blocking any command injection attacks. However, a server without support for non-synchronizing literals may instead interpret the `\"+}\\r\\n\"` as the end of a malformed command line and respond with a tagged `BAD`. In that case, the contents of the literal will be interpreted as one or more new pipelined commands, allowing a CRLF command injection attack to succeed.\n\nThis affects the following commands\u0027 string arguments:\n* `criteria` for `#search` and `#uid_search`\n* `search_keys` for `#sort`, `#thread`, `#uid_sort`, and `#uid_thread`\n* `attr` for `#fetch` and `#uid_fetch`\n\nPrior to `net-imap` v0.6.4, v0.5.14, and v0.4.24, raw data arguments were not validated in _any_ way, so they were also vulnerable to this attack. See CVE-2026-42257 (GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg).\n\n### Impact\n\nFortunately, `LITERAL-` is supported by most modern IMAP servers. Even without support for non-synchronizing literals, cautious servers may handle invalid literal bytesize by closing the connection . However, servers which handle a non-synchronizing literal just like any other malformed command will enable this vulnerability.\n\nIf a developer passes an unvalidated user-controlled input for one of these method arguments, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like DELETE mailbox). Although this does not directly enable data exfiltration, it could be combined with other attack vectors or knowledge of the target system\u0027s attributes, e.g.: shared mail folders or the application\u0027s installed response handlers.\n\n### Mitigation\n\nUpdate to a version of `net-imap` which validates server support for non-synchronizing literals before sending them.\n\nIf upgrading `net-imap` is not possible:\n* Explicitly validate user-controlled inputs to prevent embedded non-synchronizing literals unless the server supports them.\n* For a simpler, more cautious approach: all embedded literals can be unconditionally prohibited, by checking that string inputs do not contain any CR or LF bytes.\n* Verify that the server advertises any of the `LITERAL+`, `LITERAL-`, or `IMAP4rev2` capabilities before using untrusted string inputs for the affected \"raw data\" arguments.",
"id": "GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8",
"modified": "2026-07-06T22:53:42Z",
"published": "2026-06-09T18:36:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/security/advisories/GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-47240"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/releases/tag/v0.6.4.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/net-imap/CVE-2026-47240.yml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-47240"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in \"raw\" argument"
}
GHSA-8P42-7597-P2F6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-27 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-30 08:26A vulnerability was found in cyanomiko dcnnt-py up to 0.9.0. It has been classified as critical. Affected is the function main of the file dcnnt/plugins/notifications.py of the component Notification Handler. The manipulation leads to command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Upgrading to version 0.9.1 is able to address this issue. The patch is identified as b4021d784a97e25151a5353aa763a741e9a148f5. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. VDB-262230 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.9.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "dcnnt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.9.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-1000"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-30T08:26:21Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-27T09:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in cyanomiko dcnnt-py up to 0.9.0. It has been classified as critical. Affected is the function main of the file dcnnt/plugins/notifications.py of the component Notification Handler. The manipulation leads to command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Upgrading to version 0.9.1 is able to address this issue. The patch is identified as b4021d784a97e25151a5353aa763a741e9a148f5. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. VDB-262230 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-8p42-7597-p2f6",
"modified": "2024-04-30T08:26:21Z",
"published": "2024-04-27T09:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1000"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cyanomiko/dcnnt-py/pull/23"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cyanomiko/dcnnt-py/commit/b4021d784a97e25151a5353aa763a741e9a148f5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/cyanomiko/dcnnt-py"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cyanomiko/dcnnt-py/releases/tag/0.9.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.262230"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.262230"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "dcnnt-py is vulnerable to command injection via Notification Handler"
}
GHSA-8P5Q-J9M2-G8WR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-03 20:37 – Updated: 2021-12-02 00:01Withdrawn
GitHub has chosen to publish this CVE as a withdrawn advisory due to it not being a security issue. See this issue for more details.
CVE description
"** DISPUTED ** A command injection vulnerability in Lodash 4.17.21 allows attackers to achieve arbitrary code execution via the template function. This is a different parameter, method, and version than CVE-2021-23337. NOTE: the vendor's position is that it's the developer's responsibility to ensure that a template does not evaluate code that originates from untrusted input.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "lodash"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "4.17.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-41720"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-30T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "# Withdrawn\n\nGitHub has chosen to publish this CVE as a withdrawn advisory due to it not being a security issue. See [this issue](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/5261) for more details.\n\n# CVE description\n\n\"** DISPUTED ** A command injection vulnerability in Lodash 4.17.21 allows attackers to achieve arbitrary code execution via the template function. This is a different parameter, method, and version than CVE-2021-23337. NOTE: the vendor\u0027s position is that it\u0027s the developer\u0027s responsibility to ensure that a template does not evaluate code that originates from untrusted input.",
"id": "GHSA-8p5q-j9m2-g8wr",
"modified": "2021-12-02T00:01:18Z",
"published": "2021-12-03T20:37:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-23337"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-41720"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/5261"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/lodash/lodash"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20211004200531/https:/github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/5261"
}
],
"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": "Withdrawn: Arbitrary code execution in lodash",
"withdrawn": "2021-10-01T22:04:28Z"
}
GHSA-8P5X-J4CX-8CWG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-21 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-21 21:31Tenda W30E V2.0 V16.01.0.21 was found to contain a command injection vulnerability in the do_ping_action function via the hostName parameter. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-38834"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-21T17:16:53Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Tenda W30E V2.0 V16.01.0.21 was found to contain a command injection vulnerability in the do_ping_action function via the hostName parameter. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted request.",
"id": "GHSA-8p5x-j4cx-8cwg",
"modified": "2026-04-21T21:31:23Z",
"published": "2026-04-21T18:31:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-38834"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jsjbcyber/repo/blob/main/rep_1.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8P6X-2W5R-WVV8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-06 09:31 – Updated: 2025-05-06 09:31A vulnerability classified as critical was found in D-Link DIR-880L up to 104WWb01. Affected by this vulnerability is the function sub_16570 of the file /htdocs/ssdpcgi of the component Request Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument HTTP_ST/REMOTE_ADDR/REMOTE_PORT/SERVER_ID leads to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-4341"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-74",
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-06T09:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability classified as critical was found in D-Link DIR-880L up to 104WWb01. Affected by this vulnerability is the function sub_16570 of the file /htdocs/ssdpcgi of the component Request Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument HTTP_ST/REMOTE_ADDR/REMOTE_PORT/SERVER_ID leads to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.",
"id": "GHSA-8p6x-2w5r-wvv8",
"modified": "2025-05-06T09:31:34Z",
"published": "2025-05-06T09:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4341"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/CH13hh/tmp_store_cc/blob/main/DIR-880L/1.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.307459"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.307459"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.556433"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dlink.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-8PCP-29RV-982G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:55 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:55An issue was discovered in Tesla Motors Model S automobile, all firmware versions before version 7.1 (2.36.31) with web browser functionality enabled. The vehicle's Gateway ECU is susceptible to commands that may allow an attacker to install malicious software allowing the attacker to send messages to the vehicle's CAN bus, a Command Injection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-9337"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-02-13T21:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Tesla Motors Model S automobile, all firmware versions before version 7.1 (2.36.31) with web browser functionality enabled. The vehicle\u0027s Gateway ECU is susceptible to commands that may allow an attacker to install malicious software allowing the attacker to send messages to the vehicle\u0027s CAN bus, a Command Injection.",
"id": "GHSA-8pcp-29rv-982g",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:55:52Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:55:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-9337"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-16-341-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/94697"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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.