Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-78

Allowed

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

8272 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-VHW7-M8M3-XQWQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-22 03:30 – Updated: 2025-05-22 03:30
VLAI
Details

eCharge Hardy Barth cPH2 index.php Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of eCharge Hardy Barth cPH2 charging stations. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.

The specific flaw exists within the handling of GET parameters provided to the index.php endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the www-data user. Was ZDI-CAN-23115.

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-3883"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-05-22T01:15:54Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "eCharge Hardy Barth cPH2 index.php Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of eCharge Hardy Barth cPH2 charging stations. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the handling of GET parameters provided to the index.php endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the www-data user. Was ZDI-CAN-23115.",
  "id": "GHSA-vhw7-m8m3-xqwq",
  "modified": "2025-05-22T03:30:30Z",
  "published": "2025-05-22T03:30:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3883"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-249"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-VHXX-3297-X3W7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-26 00:00
VLAI
Details

Arris TR3300 v1.0.13 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the pptp (wan_pptp.html) function via the pptp_fix_ip, pptp_fix_mask, pptp_fix_gw, and wan_dns1_stat parameters. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted request.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-26995"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-03-15T22:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Arris TR3300 v1.0.13 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the pptp (wan_pptp.html) function via the pptp_fix_ip, pptp_fix_mask, pptp_fix_gw, and wan_dns1_stat parameters. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted request.",
  "id": "GHSA-vhxx-3297-x3w7",
  "modified": "2022-03-26T00:00:50Z",
  "published": "2022-03-17T00:00:55Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-26995"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/wudipjq/my_vuln/blob/main/ARRIS/vuln_14/14.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-VJ3J-52Q7-FQVP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-04 15:31 – Updated: 2024-11-04 18:31
VLAI
Details

DrayTek Vigor3900 1.5.1.3 contains a post-authentication command injection vulnerability. This vulnerability occurs when the action parameter in cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi is set to setSWMOption.

Severity
8.0 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-45893"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-11-04T15:15:22Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "DrayTek Vigor3900 1.5.1.3 contains a post-authentication command injection vulnerability. This vulnerability occurs when the `action` parameter in `cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi` is set to `setSWMOption.`",
  "id": "GHSA-vj3j-52q7-fqvp",
  "modified": "2024-11-04T18:31:21Z",
  "published": "2024-11-04T15:31:59Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45893"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/N1nEmAn/wp/blob/main/test_v.zip"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/fu37kola/cve/blob/main/DrayTek/Vigor3900/1.5.1.3/DrayTek_Vigor_3900_1.5.1.3.pdf"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-VJ3M-2G9H-VM4P

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-05 21:29 – Updated: 2026-05-05 21:29
VLAI
Summary
Grav has multiple RCE vectors: unsafe unserialize (x3), command injection in git clone, SSTI blocklist bypass
Details

Multiple RCE vectors were found in Grav CMS. Three are critical, two are high.

1. Unsafe unserialize() in JobQueue — direct RCE gadget (Critical)

system/src/Grav/Common/Scheduler/JobQueue.php:465 calls unserialize(base64_decode(...)) without restricting allowed_classes. The Job class has call_user_func_array($this->command, $this->args) in its execution path, which is a direct gadget chain — inject a serialized Job with command = 'system' and args = ['whoami'].

The same codebase actually has a Serializable trait that correctly restricts classes, so this inconsistency stands out.

2. Unsafe unserialize() in FileCache — arbitrary class instantiation (Critical)

system/src/Grav/Framework/Cache/Adapter/FileCache.php:75 does unserialize($value, ['allowed_classes' => true]). That true allows instantiation of any class. If an attacker can write to the cache directory (via any file write primitive), they get object injection → RCE.

3. Unsafe unserialize() in Session (High)

system/src/Grav/Common/Session.php:116 — same allowed_classes => true pattern on session data. Lower severity since session storage is typically more restricted.

4. Command injection in git clone (Critical)

system/src/Grav/Console/Cli/InstallCommand.php:150 — only $this->destination uses escapeshellarg(). The $data['branch'], $data['url'], and $data['path'] variables go directly into the shell command without escaping. Admin-accessible via plugin/theme installation.

5. SSTI blocklist bypass (High)

system/src/Grav/Common/Security.php:267-286 — cleanDangerousTwig() blocks twig_array_map and twig_array_filter but not twig_array_reduce. Also missing file_get_contents and fwrite from the dangerous function blocklist. An attacker who can inject Twig templates can bypass the security filter.

All five are independently exploitable. The unserialize issues are the most concerning since they don't require admin access if there's any file write primitive.

— ProScan AppSec | proscan.one

Maintainer note — fix applied (2026-04-24)

Fixed in Grav core on the 2.0 branch: commit c66dfeb5f (items #1, #2, #3, #4) and commit 38685ac25 + c66dfeb5f (item #5) — ships in 2.0.0-beta.2.

All five vectors addressed:

  1. Scheduler\JobQueue unsafe unserialize — serialized_job now carries a sibling serialized_job_hmac signed with Security::getNonceKey(). reconstructJob refuses to unserialize an item whose HMAC is missing/mismatched and falls through to the safe structured-fields rebuild. A tampered queue file can no longer smuggle a forged Job for direct RCE via Job::exec → call_user_func_array.
    → system/src/Grav/Common/Scheduler/JobQueue.php

  2. FileCache unsafe unserialize — same HMAC-integrity approach; see separate GHSA-gwfr-jfjf-92vv.
    → system/src/Grav/Framework/Cache/Adapter/FileCache.php

  3. Session::getFlashObject unsafe unserialize — payload now wrapped in a v2|<hmac>|<serialized> envelope; legacy/forged envelopes return null instead of triggering unserialize.
    → system/src/Grav/Common/Session.php

  4. InstallCommand git clone shell injection — branch, url, and path values read from user/.dependencies are now passed through escapeshellarg, with a -- separator before url/path to block option-injection (e.g. --upload-pack=evil).
    → system/src/Grav/Console/Cli/InstallCommand.php

  5. SSTI blocklist bypass — twig_array_reduce (the specific name called out) plus twig_array_some and twig_array_every added to cleanDangerousTwig's CALLABLE_DANGEROUS_NAMES alongside the existing twig_array_map/filter. More importantly, the new Twig content sandbox in 2.0.0-beta.2 blocks this class of attack at a different layer — see the sandbox work in 38685ac25.
    → system/src/Grav/Common/Security.php

Tests: - tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/UnserializeIntegritySecurityTest.php — 8 cases covering JobQueue + Session HMAC integrity. - tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/FileCacheSecurityTest.php. - tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/CleanDangerousTwigTest.php — new twig_array_* entries in providerCallbackFunctions.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Packagist",
        "name": "getgrav/grav"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.0.0-beta.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-502",
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-05T21:29:02Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Multiple RCE vectors were found in Grav CMS. Three are critical, two are high.\n\n**1. Unsafe unserialize() in JobQueue \u2014 direct RCE gadget (Critical)**\n\n`system/src/Grav/Common/Scheduler/JobQueue.php:465` calls `unserialize(base64_decode(...))` without restricting `allowed_classes`. The `Job` class has `call_user_func_array($this-\u003ecommand, $this-\u003eargs)` in its execution path, which is a direct gadget chain \u2014 inject a serialized `Job` with `command = \u0027system\u0027` and `args = [\u0027whoami\u0027]`.\n\nThe same codebase actually has a `Serializable` trait that correctly restricts classes, so this inconsistency stands out.\n\n**2. Unsafe unserialize() in FileCache \u2014 arbitrary class instantiation (Critical)**\n\n`system/src/Grav/Framework/Cache/Adapter/FileCache.php:75` does `unserialize($value, [\u0027allowed_classes\u0027 =\u003e true])`. That `true` allows instantiation of any class. If an attacker can write to the cache directory (via any file write primitive), they get object injection \u2192 RCE.\n\n**3. Unsafe unserialize() in Session (High)**\n\n`system/src/Grav/Common/Session.php:116` \u2014 same `allowed_classes =\u003e true` pattern on session data. Lower severity since session storage is typically more restricted.\n\n**4. Command injection in git clone (Critical)**\n\n`system/src/Grav/Console/Cli/InstallCommand.php:150` \u2014 only `$this-\u003edestination` uses `escapeshellarg()`. The `$data[\u0027branch\u0027]`, `$data[\u0027url\u0027]`, and `$data[\u0027path\u0027]` variables go directly into the shell command without escaping. Admin-accessible via plugin/theme installation.\n\n**5. SSTI blocklist bypass (High)**\n\n`system/src/Grav/Common/Security.php:267-286` \u2014 `cleanDangerousTwig()` blocks `twig_array_map` and `twig_array_filter` but not `twig_array_reduce`. Also missing `file_get_contents` and `fwrite` from the dangerous function blocklist. An attacker who can inject Twig templates can bypass the security filter.\n\nAll five are independently exploitable. The unserialize issues are the most concerning since they don\u0027t require admin access if there\u0027s any file write primitive.\n\n\u2014 ProScan AppSec | proscan.one\n\n\n---\n\n## Maintainer note \u2014 fix applied (2026-04-24)\n\nFixed in Grav core on the `2.0` branch: commit [`c66dfeb5f`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/c66dfeb5f) (items #1, #2, #3, #4) and commit [`38685ac25`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/38685ac25) + [`c66dfeb5f`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/c66dfeb5f) (item #5) \u2014 ships in **2.0.0-beta.2**.\n\nAll five vectors addressed:\n\n1. **Scheduler\\JobQueue unsafe unserialize** \u2014 `serialized_job` now carries a sibling `serialized_job_hmac` signed with `Security::getNonceKey()`. `reconstructJob` refuses to unserialize an item whose HMAC is missing/mismatched and falls through to the safe structured-fields rebuild. A tampered queue file can no longer smuggle a forged `Job` for direct RCE via `Job::exec \u2192 call_user_func_array`.  \n   \u2192 [`system/src/Grav/Common/Scheduler/JobQueue.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/system/src/Grav/Common/Scheduler/JobQueue.php)\n\n2. **FileCache unsafe unserialize** \u2014 same HMAC-integrity approach; see separate GHSA-gwfr-jfjf-92vv.  \n   \u2192 [`system/src/Grav/Framework/Cache/Adapter/FileCache.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/system/src/Grav/Framework/Cache/Adapter/FileCache.php)\n\n3. **Session::getFlashObject unsafe unserialize** \u2014 payload now wrapped in a `v2|\u003chmac\u003e|\u003cserialized\u003e` envelope; legacy/forged envelopes return null instead of triggering `unserialize`.  \n   \u2192 [`system/src/Grav/Common/Session.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/system/src/Grav/Common/Session.php)\n\n4. **InstallCommand `git clone` shell injection** \u2014 `branch`, `url`, and `path` values read from `user/.dependencies` are now passed through `escapeshellarg`, with a `--` separator before url/path to block option-injection (e.g. `--upload-pack=evil`).  \n   \u2192 [`system/src/Grav/Console/Cli/InstallCommand.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/system/src/Grav/Console/Cli/InstallCommand.php)\n\n5. **SSTI blocklist bypass** \u2014 `twig_array_reduce` (the specific name called out) plus `twig_array_some` and `twig_array_every` added to `cleanDangerousTwig`\u0027s `CALLABLE_DANGEROUS_NAMES` alongside the existing `twig_array_map`/`filter`. More importantly, the new Twig content sandbox in 2.0.0-beta.2 blocks this class of attack at a different layer \u2014 see the sandbox work in [`38685ac25`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/38685ac25).  \n   \u2192 [`system/src/Grav/Common/Security.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/system/src/Grav/Common/Security.php)\n\n**Tests:**\n- [`tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/UnserializeIntegritySecurityTest.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/UnserializeIntegritySecurityTest.php) \u2014 8 cases covering JobQueue + Session HMAC integrity.\n- [`tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/FileCacheSecurityTest.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/FileCacheSecurityTest.php).\n- [`tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/CleanDangerousTwigTest.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/CleanDangerousTwigTest.php) \u2014 new `twig_array_*` entries in `providerCallbackFunctions`.",
  "id": "GHSA-vj3m-2g9h-vm4p",
  "modified": "2026-05-05T21:29:02Z",
  "published": "2026-05-05T21:29:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/security/advisories/GHSA-vj3m-2g9h-vm4p"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/5a12f9be8314682c8713e569e330f11805d0a663"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [],
  "summary": "Grav has multiple RCE vectors: unsafe unserialize (x3), command injection in git clone, SSTI blocklist bypass"
}

GHSA-VJ52-239V-8H2J

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-03 03:31 – Updated: 2024-05-03 03:31
VLAI
Details

Control Web Panel mysql_manager Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Control Web Panel. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability.

The specific flaw exists within the mysql_manager module. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-21080.

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-42123"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-05-03T03:15:51Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Control Web Panel mysql_manager Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Control Web Panel. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the mysql_manager module. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-21080.",
  "id": "GHSA-vj52-239v-8h2j",
  "modified": "2024-05-03T03:31:04Z",
  "published": "2024-05-03T03:31:04Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-42123"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-23-1476"
    }
  ],
  "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-VJ55-4R38-W2GH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-08 18:30 – Updated: 2026-02-26 15:30
VLAI
Details

An OS command injection vulnerability has been found to affect legacy QNAP VioStor NVR models running QVR Firmware 4.x. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow authenticated users to execute commands via a network.

We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:

QVR Firmware 5.0.0 and later

Severity
8.0 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-47565"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-12-08T16:15:16Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An OS command injection vulnerability has been found to affect legacy QNAP VioStor NVR models running QVR Firmware 4.x. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow authenticated users to execute commands via a network.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:\n\nQVR Firmware 5.0.0\u00a0and later",
  "id": "GHSA-vj55-4r38-w2gh",
  "modified": "2026-02-26T15:30:29Z",
  "published": "2023-12-08T18:30:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-47565"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2023-47565"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-23-48"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-VJ79-3HWH-JCF7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-07 18:31 – Updated: 2025-09-24 21:30
VLAI
Details

A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect QHora. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands.

We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: QuRouter 2.4.5.032 and later

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
7.7 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-50390"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-07T17:15:19Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect QHora. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version:\nQuRouter 2.4.5.032 and later",
  "id": "GHSA-vj79-3hwh-jcf7",
  "modified": "2025-09-24T21:30:31Z",
  "published": "2025-03-07T18:31:05Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50390"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-25-01"
    }
  ],
  "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:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-VJ7W-3M8C-6VPX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-07 20:31 – Updated: 2025-02-10 17:01
VLAI
Summary
SFTPGo has insufficient sanitization of user provided rsync command
Details

Impact

SFTPGo supports execution of a defined set of commands via SSH. Besides a set of default commands some optional commands can be activated, one of them being rsync: it is disabled in the default configuration and it is limited to the local filesystem, it does not work with cloud/remote storage backends.

Due to missing sanitization of the client provided rsync command, an authenticated remote user can use some options of the rsync command to read or write files with the permissions of the SFTPGo server process.

Patches

This issue was fixed in version v2.6.5 by checking the client provided arguments.

https://github.com/drakkan/sftpgo/commit/b347ab6051f6c501da205c09315fe99cd1fa3ba1

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.6.4"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/drakkan/sftpgo/v2"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.9.5"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.6.5"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/drakkan/sftpgo"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "last_affected": "1.2.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-24366"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-02-07T20:31:22Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-02-07T22:15:14Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nSFTPGo supports execution of a defined set of commands via SSH. Besides a set of default commands some optional commands can be activated, one of them being `rsync`: it is disabled in the default configuration and it is limited to the local filesystem, it does not work with cloud/remote storage backends.\n\nDue to missing sanitization of the client provided `rsync` command, an authenticated remote user can use some options of the rsync command to read or write files with the permissions of the SFTPGo server process. \n\n### Patches\nThis issue was fixed in version v2.6.5 by checking the client provided arguments.\n\nhttps://github.com/drakkan/sftpgo/commit/b347ab6051f6c501da205c09315fe99cd1fa3ba1",
  "id": "GHSA-vj7w-3m8c-6vpx",
  "modified": "2025-02-10T17:01:46Z",
  "published": "2025-02-07T20:31:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/drakkan/sftpgo/security/advisories/GHSA-vj7w-3m8c-6vpx"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24366"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/drakkan/sftpgo/commit/b347ab6051f6c501da205c09315fe99cd1fa3ba1"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/drakkan/sftpgo"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "SFTPGo has insufficient sanitization of user provided rsync command"
}

GHSA-VJCC-R8CC-JQJ4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:06 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:06
VLAI
Details

In Weidmueller Industrial WLAN devices in multiple versions an exploitable command injection vulnerability exists in the hostname functionality. A specially crafted entry to network configuration information can cause execution of arbitrary system commands, resulting in full control of the device. An attacker can send various authenticated requests to trigger this vulnerability.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-33534"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-06-25T19:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In Weidmueller Industrial WLAN devices in multiple versions an exploitable command injection vulnerability exists in the hostname functionality. A specially crafted entry to network configuration information can cause execution of arbitrary system commands, resulting in full control of the device. An attacker can send various authenticated requests to trigger this vulnerability.",
  "id": "GHSA-vjcc-r8cc-jqj4",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:06:16Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:06:16Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33534"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert.vde.com/en-us/advisories/vde-2021-026"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-VJGF-5H8J-H29J

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-26 12:41 – Updated: 2024-11-26 12:41
VLAI
Details

A CWE-798 "Use of Hard-coded Credentials" was discovered affecting the following devices manufactured by Advantech: EKI-6333AC-2G (<= 1.6.3), EKI-6333AC-2GD (<= v1.6.3) and EKI-6333AC-1GPO (<= v1.2.1). The vulnerability is associated to the backup configuration functionality that by default encrypts the archives using a static password.

Severity
6.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-50377"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-78",
      "CWE-798"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-11-26T11:22:08Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A CWE-798 \"Use of Hard-coded Credentials\" was discovered affecting the following devices manufactured by Advantech: EKI-6333AC-2G (\u003c= 1.6.3), EKI-6333AC-2GD (\u003c= v1.6.3) and EKI-6333AC-1GPO (\u003c= v1.2.1). The vulnerability is associated to the backup configuration functionality that by default encrypts the archives using a static password.",
  "id": "GHSA-vjgf-5h8j-h29j",
  "modified": "2024-11-26T12:41:37Z",
  "published": "2024-11-26T12:41:37Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50377"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.nozominetworks.com/labs/vulnerability-advisories-cve-2024-50377"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.

Mitigation MIT-22
Architecture and Design Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

  • Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction

For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.

Mitigation MIT-15
Architecture and Design

For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Mitigation MIT-4.3
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
  • For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
Mitigation MIT-28
Implementation

Strategy: Output Encoding

While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).

Mitigation
Implementation

If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.

Mitigation MIT-27
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Parameterization

  • If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
  • Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
Mitigation MIT-5
Implementation

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.
  • When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
  • Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
  • Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
Mitigation MIT-21
Architecture and Design

Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion

When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.

Mitigation MIT-32
Operation

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
Operation

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 MIT-39
Implementation
  • Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
  • If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
  • Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
  • In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Mitigation
Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.

Mitigation MIT-29
Operation

Strategy: Firewall

Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

Mitigation MIT-17
Architecture and Design Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

Mitigation MIT-16
Operation Implementation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection

An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.

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-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-6: Argument Injection

An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.

CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection

In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

← Back to the CWE list