Common Weakness Enumeration
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Show details on NVD website
Back to CWE stats page
CWE-78
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
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.
CVE-2025-5459 (GCVE-0-2025-5459)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-06-26 06:30 – Updated: 2025-07-03 09:25
VLAI
Title
OS Command Injection
Summary
A user with specific node group editing permissions and a specially crafted class parameter could be used to execute commands as root on the primary host. It affects Puppet Enterprise versions 2018.1.8 through 2023.8.3 and 2025.3 and has been resolved in versions 2023.8.4 and 2025.4.0.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Assigner
References
1 reference
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perforce | Puppet Enterprise |
Affected:
2018.1.8 , ≤ 2023.8.3, 2025.3
(custom)
|
Date Public
2025-06-25 18:00
Credits
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-5459",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-06-26T13:30:51.791004Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-06-26T13:31:04.769Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Puppet Enterprise",
"vendor": "Perforce",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "2023.8.3, 2025.3",
"status": "affected",
"version": "2018.1.8",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "TIM Security Red Team Research - https://www.gruppotim.it/it/footer/red-team.html"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Marco Ventura"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Claudia Bartolini"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Andrea Carlo Maria Dattola"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Stefano Carb\u00e8"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Massimiliano Brolli"
}
],
"datePublic": "2025-06-25T18:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "A user with specific node group editing permissions and a specially crafted class parameter could be used to execute commands as root on the primary host. It affects Puppet Enterprise versions 2018.1.8 through 2023.8.3 and 2025.3 and has been resolved in versions 2023.8.4 and 2025.4.0."
}
],
"value": "A user with specific node group editing permissions and a specially crafted class parameter could be used to execute commands as root on the primary host. It affects Puppet Enterprise versions 2018.1.8 through 2023.8.3 and 2025.3 and has been resolved in versions 2023.8.4 and 2025.4.0."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 8.6,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "HIGH",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-07-03T09:25:04.719Z",
"orgId": "ca2a266c-be2f-4d4b-92d0-47b76b1a9c4e",
"shortName": "Perforce"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://portal.perforce.com/s/detail/a91PA000001SiDdYAK"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "OS Command Injection",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "ca2a266c-be2f-4d4b-92d0-47b76b1a9c4e",
"assignerShortName": "Perforce",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-5459",
"datePublished": "2025-06-26T06:30:56.546Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-06-02T09:29:25.872Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-07-03T09:25:04.719Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-54595 (GCVE-0-2025-54595)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-08-01 18:06 – Updated: 2025-08-01 18:21
VLAI
Title
Pearcleaner's unauthenticated access to privileged XPC helper allows root command execution
Summary
Pearcleaner is a free, source-available and fair-code licensed mac app cleaner. The PearcleanerHelper is a privileged helper tool bundled with the Pearcleaner application. It is registered and activated only after the user approves a system prompt to allow privileged operations. Upon approval, the helper is configured as a LaunchDaemon and runs with root privileges. In versions 4.4.0 through 4.5.1, the helper registers an XPC service (com.alienator88.Pearcleaner.PearcleanerHelper) and accepts unauthenticated connections from any local process. It exposes a method that executes arbitrary shell commands. This allows any local unprivileged user to escalate privileges to root once the helper is approved and active. This issue is fixed in version 4.5.2.
Severity
7.3 (High)
SSVC
Exploitation: poc
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
Assigner
References
4 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/securi… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/issues/278 | x_refsource_MISC |
| https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/commit… | x_refsource_MISC |
| https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/releas… | x_refsource_MISC |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| alienator88 | Pearcleaner |
Affected:
>= 4.4.0, < 4.5.2
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54595",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-01T18:21:37.941397Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-01T18:21:50.407Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "Pearcleaner",
"vendor": "alienator88",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 4.4.0, \u003c 4.5.2"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Pearcleaner is a free, source-available and fair-code licensed mac app cleaner. The PearcleanerHelper is a privileged helper tool bundled with the Pearcleaner application. It is registered and activated only after the user approves a system prompt to allow privileged operations. Upon approval, the helper is configured as a LaunchDaemon and runs with root privileges. In versions 4.4.0 through 4.5.1, the helper registers an XPC service (com.alienator88.Pearcleaner.PearcleanerHelper) and accepts unauthenticated connections from any local process. It exposes a method that executes arbitrary shell commands. This allows any local unprivileged user to escalate privileges to root once the helper is approved and active. This issue is fixed in version 4.5.2."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.3,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-269",
"description": "CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-01T18:06:23.948Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/security/advisories/GHSA-gr2j-65fh-8pvc",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/security/advisories/GHSA-gr2j-65fh-8pvc"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/issues/278",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/issues/278"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/commit/69afadfa95791cb998118ca35c227007b230b984",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/commit/69afadfa95791cb998118ca35c227007b230b984"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/releases/tag/4.5.2",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/alienator88/Pearcleaner/releases/tag/4.5.2"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-gr2j-65fh-8pvc",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Pearcleaner\u0027s unauthenticated access to privileged XPC helper allows root command execution"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54595",
"datePublished": "2025-08-01T18:06:23.948Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-07-25T16:19:16.095Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-01T18:21:50.407Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-54763 (GCVE-0-2025-54763)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-10-31 05:55 – Updated: 2025-10-31 17:15
VLAI
Summary
FutureNet MA and IP-K series provided by Century Systems Co., Ltd. contain an OS command Injection vulnerability. A user who logs in to the Web UI of the product may execute an arbitrary OS command.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection')
Assigner
References
2 references
Impacted products
5 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Century Systems Co., Ltd. | FutureNet MA-X series |
Affected:
from 6.0.0 to 6.4.1
|
|
| Century Systems Co., Ltd. | FutureNet MA-E300 series |
Affected:
from 5.0.0 to 6.2.1
|
|
| Century Systems Co., Ltd. | FutureNet MA-S series |
Affected:
from 5.0.0 to 6.4.0
|
|
| Century Systems Co., Ltd. | FutureNet MA-P series |
Affected:
from 5.0.0 to 6.4.0
|
|
| Century Systems Co., Ltd. | FutureNet IP-K series |
Affected:
from 2.0.0 to 2.2.1
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54763",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-10-31T17:09:21.191509Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-31T17:15:10.387Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "FutureNet MA-X series",
"vendor": "Century Systems Co., Ltd.",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "from 6.0.0 to 6.4.1"
}
]
},
{
"product": "FutureNet MA-E300 series",
"vendor": "Century Systems Co., Ltd.",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "from 5.0.0 to 6.2.1"
}
]
},
{
"product": "FutureNet MA-S series",
"vendor": "Century Systems Co., Ltd.",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "from 5.0.0 to 6.4.0"
}
]
},
{
"product": "FutureNet MA-P series",
"vendor": "Century Systems Co., Ltd.",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "from 5.0.0 to 6.4.0"
}
]
},
{
"product": "FutureNet IP-K series",
"vendor": "Century Systems Co., Ltd.",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "from 2.0.0 to 2.2.1"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "FutureNet MA and IP-K series provided by Century Systems Co., Ltd. contain an OS command Injection vulnerability. A user who logs in to the Web UI of the product may execute an arbitrary OS command."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 7.2,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"baseScore": 8.6,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-31T05:55:24.573Z",
"orgId": "ede6fdc4-6654-4307-a26d-3331c018e2ce",
"shortName": "jpcert"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://www.centurysys.co.jp/backnumber/common/jvnvu98191201.html"
},
{
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/vu/JVNVU98191201/"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "ede6fdc4-6654-4307-a26d-3331c018e2ce",
"assignerShortName": "jpcert",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54763",
"datePublished": "2025-10-31T05:55:24.573Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-10-17T08:08:15.679Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-31T17:15:10.387Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2025-54782 (GCVE-0-2025-54782)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-08-01 23:36 – Updated: 2025-08-04 15:23
VLAI
Title
@nestjs/devtools-integration's CSRF to Sandbox Escape Allows for RCE against JS Developers
Summary
Nest is a framework for building scalable Node.js server-side applications. In versions 0.2.0 and below, a critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was discovered in the @nestjs/devtools-integration package. When enabled, the package exposes a local development HTTP server with an API endpoint that uses an unsafe JavaScript sandbox (safe-eval-like implementation). Due to improper sandboxing and missing cross-origin protections, any malicious website visited by a developer can execute arbitrary code on their local machine. The package adds HTTP endpoints to a locally running NestJS development server. One of these endpoints, /inspector/graph/interact, accepts JSON input containing a code field and executes the provided code in a Node.js vm.runInNewContext sandbox. This is fixed in version 0.2.1.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: poc
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
Assigner
References
5 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/nestjs/nest/security/advisorie… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-devtools-in… | x_refsource_MISC |
| https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-… | x_refsource_MISC |
| https://nodejs.org/api/vm.html | x_refsource_MISC |
| https://socket.dev/blog/nestjs-rce-vuln | x_refsource_MISC |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54782",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-04T15:23:27.339034Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-04T15:23:30.116Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/nestjs/nest/security/advisories/GHSA-85cg-cmq5-qjm7"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "nest",
"vendor": "nestjs",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 0.2.1"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Nest is a framework for building scalable Node.js server-side applications. In versions 0.2.0 and below, a critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was discovered in the @nestjs/devtools-integration package. When enabled, the package exposes a local development HTTP server with an API endpoint that uses an unsafe JavaScript sandbox (safe-eval-like implementation). Due to improper sandboxing and missing cross-origin protections, any malicious website visited by a developer can execute arbitrary code on their local machine. The package adds HTTP endpoints to a locally running NestJS development server. One of these endpoints, /inspector/graph/interact, accepts JSON input containing a code field and executes the provided code in a Node.js vm.runInNewContext sandbox. This is fixed in version 0.2.1."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "ADJACENT",
"baseScore": 9.4,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"subIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-77",
"description": "CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (\u0027Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-352",
"description": "CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-01T23:36:58.421Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/nestjs/nest/security/advisories/GHSA-85cg-cmq5-qjm7",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/nestjs/nest/security/advisories/GHSA-85cg-cmq5-qjm7"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-devtools-integration-rce-poc"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-starter-w-devtools-integration",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/nestjs-typescript-starter-w-devtools-integration"
},
{
"name": "https://nodejs.org/api/vm.html",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://nodejs.org/api/vm.html"
},
{
"name": "https://socket.dev/blog/nestjs-rce-vuln",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://socket.dev/blog/nestjs-rce-vuln"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-85cg-cmq5-qjm7",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "@nestjs/devtools-integration\u0027s CSRF to Sandbox Escape Allows for RCE against JS Developers"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54782",
"datePublished": "2025-08-01T23:36:58.421Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-07-29T16:50:28.391Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-04T15:23:30.116Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-54795 (GCVE-0-2025-54795)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-08-05 00:07 – Updated: 2025-08-05 14:21
VLAI
Title
Claude Code echo command allowed bypass of user approval prompt for command execution
Summary
Claude Code is an agentic coding tool. In versions below 1.0.20, an error in command parsing makes it possible to bypass the Claude Code confirmation prompt to trigger execution of an untrusted command. Reliably exploiting this requires the ability to add untrusted content into a Claude Code context window. This is fixed in version 1.0.20.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Assigner
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/securit… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| anthropics | claude-code |
Affected:
< 1.0.20
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54795",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-05T14:21:40.269304Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-05T14:21:47.500Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "claude-code",
"vendor": "anthropics",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 1.0.20"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Claude Code is an agentic coding tool. In versions below 1.0.20, an error in command parsing makes it possible to bypass the Claude Code confirmation prompt to trigger execution of an untrusted command. Reliably exploiting this requires the ability to add untrusted content into a Claude Code context window. This is fixed in version 1.0.20."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 8.7,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-05T00:07:29.465Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/security/advisories/GHSA-x56v-x2h6-7j34",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/security/advisories/GHSA-x56v-x2h6-7j34"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-x56v-x2h6-7j34",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Claude Code echo command allowed bypass of user approval prompt for command execution"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54795",
"datePublished": "2025-08-05T00:07:29.465Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-07-29T16:50:28.394Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-05T14:21:47.500Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-54857 (GCVE-0-2025-54857)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-09-01 05:27 – Updated: 2025-09-02 14:10
VLAI
Summary
Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection') issue exists in SkyBridge BASIC MB-A130 Ver.1.5.8 and earlier. If exploited, a remote unauthenticated attacker may execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges.
Severity
9.8 (Critical)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection')
Assigner
References
2 references
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seiko Solutions Inc. | SkyBridge BASIC MB-A130 |
Affected:
Ver.1.5.8 and earlier
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54857",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-09-02T14:09:54.993899Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-09-02T14:10:07.142Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "SkyBridge BASIC MB-A130",
"vendor": "Seiko Solutions Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "Ver.1.5.8 and earlier"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) issue exists in SkyBridge BASIC MB-A130 Ver.1.5.8 and earlier. If exploited, a remote unauthenticated attacker may execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_0": {
"baseScore": 9.8,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.0"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"baseScore": 9.3,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"vectorString": "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",
"version": "4.0"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-09-01T05:27:10.112Z",
"orgId": "ede6fdc4-6654-4307-a26d-3331c018e2ce",
"shortName": "jpcert"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://www.seiko-sol.co.jp/archives/90289/"
},
{
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN22016482/"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "ede6fdc4-6654-4307-a26d-3331c018e2ce",
"assignerShortName": "jpcert",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54857",
"datePublished": "2025-09-01T05:27:10.112Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-08-25T00:22:42.724Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-09-02T14:10:07.142Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-54941 (GCVE-0-2025-54941)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-10-30 09:45 – Updated: 2026-02-26 16:56
VLAI
Title
Apache Airflow: Command injection in "example_dag_decorator"
Summary
An example dag `example_dag_decorator` had non-validated parameter that allowed the UI user to redirect the example to a malicious server and execute code on worker. This however required that the example dags are enabled in production (not default) or the example dag code copied to build your own similar dag. If you used the `example_dag_decorator` please review it and apply the changes implemented in Airflow 3.0.5 accordingly.
Severity
4.6 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Assigner
References
2 references
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache Software Foundation | Apache Airflow |
Affected:
3.0.0 , < < 3.0.5
(semver)
|
Credits
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 4.6,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54941",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-10-31T03:55:26.812707Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-26T16:56:51.440Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
},
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-11-04T21:12:56.896Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/10/29/6"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://pypi.python.org",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "apache-airflow",
"product": "Apache Airflow",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "\u003c 3.0.5",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Nacl"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "An example dag `example_dag_decorator` had non-validated parameter that allowed the UI user to redirect the example to a malicious server and execute code on worker. This however required that the example dags are enabled in production (not default) or the example dag code copied to build your own similar dag. If you used the `example_dag_decorator` please review it and apply the changes implemented in Airflow 3.0.5 accordingly.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e"
}
],
"value": "An example dag `example_dag_decorator` had non-validated parameter that allowed the UI user to redirect the example to a malicious server and execute code on worker. This however required that the example dags are enabled in production (not default) or the example dag code copied to build your own similar dag. If you used the `example_dag_decorator` please review it and apply the changes implemented in Airflow 3.0.5 accordingly."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "low"
},
"type": "Textual description of severity"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-30T09:45:26.712Z",
"orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"shortName": "apache"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/c6q6nofc6xl5bms039ks9b34v0v36df1"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Apache Airflow: Command injection in \"example_dag_decorator\"",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"assignerShortName": "apache",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54941",
"datePublished": "2025-10-30T09:45:26.712Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-08-01T06:55:04.376Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-26T16:56:51.440Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2025-54948 (GCVE-0-2025-54948)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-08-05 13:00 – Updated: 2025-10-21 22:45
VLAI
Summary
A vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex One (on-premise) management console could allow a pre-authenticated remote attacker to upload malicious code and execute commands on affected installations.
Severity
9.4 (Critical)
SSVC
Exploitation: active
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - OS Command Injection
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://success.trendmicro.com/en-US/solution/KA-… | |
| https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilit… | government-resource |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trend Micro, Inc. | Trend Micro Apex One |
Affected:
2019 (14.0) , < 14.0.0.14039
(semver)
cpe:2.3:a:trendmicro:apexone_server:14.0.0.14039:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54948",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "active"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-18T14:39:41.164980Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"dateAdded": "2025-08-18",
"reference": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2025-54948"
},
"type": "kev"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-21T22:45:21.386Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"government-resource"
],
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2025-54948"
}
],
"timeline": [
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2025-08-18T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "CVE-2025-54948 added to CISA KEV"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:trendmicro:apexone_server:14.0.0.14039:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"product": "Trend Micro Apex One",
"vendor": "Trend Micro, Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "14.0.0.14039",
"status": "affected",
"version": "2019 (14.0)",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "A vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex One (on-premise) management console could allow a pre-authenticated remote attacker to upload malicious code and execute commands on affected installations."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.4,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "CWE-78: OS Command Injection",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-05T13:00:19.905Z",
"orgId": "7f7bd7df-cffe-4fdb-ab6d-859363b89272",
"shortName": "trendmicro"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/en-US/solution/KA-0020652"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "7f7bd7df-cffe-4fdb-ab6d-859363b89272",
"assignerShortName": "trendmicro",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54948",
"datePublished": "2025-08-05T13:00:19.905Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-08-01T14:13:10.297Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-21T22:45:21.386Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-54958 (GCVE-0-2025-54958)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-08-08 04:40 – Updated: 2025-08-08 15:59
VLAI
Summary
Powered BLUE 870 versions 0.20130927 and prior contain an OS command injection vulnerability. If this vulnerability is exploited, arbitrary OS commands may be executed on the affected product.
Severity
6.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection')
Assigner
References
2 references
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mubit co.,ltd. | Powered BLUE 870 |
Affected:
0.20130927 and prior
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54958",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-08T15:58:45.674203Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-08T15:59:33.184Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "Powered BLUE 870",
"vendor": "Mubit co.,ltd.",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.20130927 and prior"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Powered BLUE 870 versions 0.20130927 and prior contain an OS command injection vulnerability. If this vulnerability is exploited, arbitrary OS commands may be executed on the affected product."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_0": {
"baseScore": 6.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"version": "3.0"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-08T04:40:26.281Z",
"orgId": "ede6fdc4-6654-4307-a26d-3331c018e2ce",
"shortName": "jpcert"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://www.mubit.co.jp/sub/products/blue/pb-base-cloud-890.html"
},
{
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN39636188/"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "ede6fdc4-6654-4307-a26d-3331c018e2ce",
"assignerShortName": "jpcert",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54958",
"datePublished": "2025-08-08T04:40:26.281Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-08-04T00:48:35.900Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-08T15:59:33.184Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-54987 (GCVE-0-2025-54987)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-08-05 13:00 – Updated: 2026-02-26 17:49
VLAI
Summary
A vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex One (on-premise) management console could allow a pre-authenticated remote attacker to upload malicious code and execute commands on affected installations. This vulnerability is essentially the same as CVE-2025-54948 but targets a different CPU architecture.
Severity
9.4 (Critical)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
- CWE-78 - OS Command Injection
Assigner
References
1 reference
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trend Micro, Inc. | Trend Micro Apex One |
Affected:
2019 (14.0) , < 14.0.0.14039
(semver)
cpe:2.3:a:trendmicro:apexone_server:14.0.0.14039:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-54987",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-06T03:55:19.746207Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-26T17:49:58.349Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:trendmicro:apexone_server:14.0.0.14039:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"product": "Trend Micro Apex One",
"vendor": "Trend Micro, Inc.",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "14.0.0.14039",
"status": "affected",
"version": "2019 (14.0)",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "A vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex One (on-premise) management console could allow a pre-authenticated remote attacker to upload malicious code and execute commands on affected installations. This vulnerability is essentially the same as CVE-2025-54948 but targets a different CPU architecture."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.4,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-78",
"description": "CWE-78: OS Command Injection",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-05T13:00:38.698Z",
"orgId": "7f7bd7df-cffe-4fdb-ab6d-859363b89272",
"shortName": "trendmicro"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/en-US/solution/KA-0020652"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "7f7bd7df-cffe-4fdb-ab6d-859363b89272",
"assignerShortName": "trendmicro",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-54987",
"datePublished": "2025-08-05T13:00:38.698Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-08-04T14:55:12.735Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-02-26T17:49:58.349Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
Mitigation
Phase: Architecture and Design
Description:
- If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation ID: MIT-22
Phases: Architecture and Design, Operation
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
Description:
- 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
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-15
Phase: Architecture and Design
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-4.3
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-28
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Output Encoding
Description:
- 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
Phase: Implementation
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-27
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Parameterization
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-5
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-21
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-32
Phase: Operation
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-32
Phase: Operation
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-39
Phase: Implementation
Description:
- 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
Phase: Operation
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-29
Phase: Operation
Strategy: Firewall
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-17
Phases: Architecture and Design, Operation
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Description:
- 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 ID: MIT-16
Phases: Operation, Implementation
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Description:
- 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.