CWE-78
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
9635 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-X6F2-CJQR-R5QR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-26 18:30 – Updated: 2023-12-30 03:30Tenda W9 V1.0.0.7(4456)_CN was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the function formSetDiagnoseInfo .
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-51098"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-26T18:15:08Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Tenda W9 V1.0.0.7(4456)_CN was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the function formSetDiagnoseInfo .",
"id": "GHSA-x6f2-cjqr-r5qr",
"modified": "2023-12-30T03:30:19Z",
"published": "2023-12-26T18:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-51098"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/GD008/TENDA/blob/main/W9/W9_setDiagnoseInfo/W9_setDiagnoseInfo.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-X6GC-682M-VJ6G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-27 03:30 – Updated: 2026-02-27 03:30An OS command injection
vulnerability exists in XWEB Pro version 1.12.1 and prior, enabling an authenticated attacker to achieve remote code execution on the system by injecting malicious input into requests sent to the firmware update route.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24517"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-27T01:16:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An OS command injection \n\n\nvulnerability exists in XWEB Pro version 1.12.1 and prior, enabling an \nauthenticated attacker to achieve remote code execution on the system by\n injecting malicious input into requests sent to the firmware update \nroute.",
"id": "GHSA-x6gc-682m-vj6g",
"modified": "2026-02-27T03:30:26Z",
"published": "2026-02-27T03:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24517"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-057-10.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://webapps.copeland.com/Dixell/Pages/SystemSoftwareUpdate"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-26-057-10"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X6H5-48Q8-5528
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-26 03:30 – Updated: 2026-03-26 18:31A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability has been identified in the Web management interface of certain ASUS router models. This vulnerability potentially allows actions to be performed with the existing privileges of an authenticated user on the affected device, including the ability to execute system commands through unintended mechanisms. Refer to the 'Security Update for ASUS Router Firmware' section on the ASUS Security Advisory for more information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-15101"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-26T03:16:02Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability has been identified in the Web management interface of certain ASUS router models. This vulnerability potentially allows actions to be performed with the existing privileges of an authenticated user on the affected device, including the ability to execute system commands through unintended mechanisms.\nRefer to the \u0027Security Update for ASUS Router Firmware\u0027 section on the ASUS Security Advisory for more information.",
"id": "GHSA-x6h5-48q8-5528",
"modified": "2026-03-26T18:31:39Z",
"published": "2026-03-26T03:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-15101"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.asus.com/security-advisory"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-X6HJ-8GMR-Q6JX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-20 15:30 – Updated: 2023-01-26 18:30TOTOlink A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the servername parameter in the setting/delStaticDhcpRules function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-48123"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-20T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "TOTOlink A7100RU V7.4cu.2313_B20191024 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the servername parameter in the setting/delStaticDhcpRules function.",
"id": "GHSA-x6hj-8gmr-q6jx",
"modified": "2023-01-26T18:30:48Z",
"published": "2023-01-20T15:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-48123"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Am1ngl/ttt/tree/main/15"
}
],
"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-X6J4-VGJQ-5839
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 15:32 – Updated: 2026-08-28 18:31luci-app-travelmate (and the travelmate package) contain a privilege-escalation flaw: a LuCI/rpcd session holding the luci-app-travelmate write ACL is granted config-wide UCI write access to the travelmate configuration. While the LuCI UI restricts the auto-login script picker to /etc/travelmate/*.login, this is only a frontend restriction. The backend travelmate service (running as root) reads the raw UCI 'script' and 'script_args' values and executes the configured path when the captive-portal auto-login branch (f_check() in travelmate-functions.sh) is reached. An attacker with delegated write permissions can set script to /bin/sh and script_args to attacker-controlled arguments, resulting in arbitrary command execution as root. Confirmed in luci-app-travelmate/travelmate 2.4.5-r3; the sink is still present in travelmate 2.4.6-1 and no patched version is known.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58652"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-02T13:17:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "luci-app-travelmate (and the travelmate package) contain a privilege-escalation flaw: a LuCI/rpcd session holding the luci-app-travelmate write ACL is granted config-wide UCI write access to the travelmate configuration. While the LuCI UI restricts the auto-login script picker to /etc/travelmate/*.login, this is only a frontend restriction. The backend travelmate service (running as root) reads the raw UCI \u0027script\u0027 and \u0027script_args\u0027 values and executes the configured path when the captive-portal auto-login branch (f_check() in travelmate-functions.sh) is reached. An attacker with delegated write permissions can set script to /bin/sh and script_args to attacker-controlled arguments, resulting in arbitrary command execution as root. Confirmed in luci-app-travelmate/travelmate 2.4.5-r3; the sink is still present in travelmate 2.4.6-1 and no patched version is known.",
"id": "GHSA-x6j4-vgjq-5839",
"modified": "2026-08-28T18:31:11Z",
"published": "2026-07-02T15:32:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/luci/security/advisories/GHSA-p35r-3323-6g7g"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/luci/commit/0627b412ee3a760cc4bca9fc8a5b73de8f33ac10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/luci/commit/491f1df06645c4e0757fed4a9f0622e9ce0d300c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/luci/commit/71d92bcc9edbc8f95858ce82a8ff5d52500005a2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/luci/commit/d6e457a1a70a9010195edeafdc0b8eb6e3b0f7f1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/luci/commit/f85102548ee8325bfd581a0327b210b5f7670829"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/packages/commit/0627b412ee3a760cc4bca9fc8a5b73de8f33ac10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/packages/commit/491f1df06645c4e0757fed4a9f0622e9ce0d300c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/packages/commit/71d92bcc9edbc8f95858ce82a8ff5d52500005a2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openwrt/packages/commit/d6e457a1a70a9010195edeafdc0b8eb6e3b0f7f1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/luci-app-travelmate-arbitrary-command-execution-via-uci-script-parameter"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-X6JW-M9V5-85VH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-05 23:48 – Updated: 2026-10-05 23:48Affected product
The default blockUnsafeOperationsPlugin in simple-git when an application permits untrusted values to reach SimpleGitOptions.config or Git inline configuration arguments such as -c <key>=<value>.
Summary
trailer.<token>.cmd is not recognized as unsafe by the default guard. Therefore, a configured inline value reaches Git without a GitPluginError.
Git documents trailer.<token>.cmd as a shell command invoked by git interpret-trailers. An application that relies on the default plugin to reject unsafe configuration can therefore execute a command supplied through an untrusted trailer-command configuration value.
Technical details
simple-git/src/lib/git-factory.ts installs commandConfigPrefixingPlugin before blockUnsafeOperationsPlugin. The prefixing plugin in simple-git/src/lib/plugins/command-config-prefixing-plugin.ts turns every SimpleGitOptions.config entry into -c <key>=<value> before the unsafe-operation plugin evaluates the final argv.
In simple-git@3.36.0, blockUnsafeOperationsPlugin delegates to @simple-git/argv-parser. packages/argv-parser/src/vulnerabilities/detect-vulnerable-config-writes.ts compares parsed configuration writes against preventUnsafeConfig. That list has no matcher for trailer.<token>.cmd, so the invocation is allowed.
Git v2.39.5's Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt states that trailer.<token>.cmd specifies a shell command called to generate or modify a trailer.
Preconditions
The application must use an affected simple-git version with the default unsafe-operation plugin active and must pass attacker-controlled data into instance configuration or Git command arguments that configure trailer.<token>.cmd.
The invoked Git binary must support the documented trailer-command behavior, and the application must execute git interpret-trailers with the attacker-controlled configuration in scope. The command runs with the operating-system identity and permissions of the Node.js process.
Verification
Use an isolated test environment and a harmless executable test helper that records only its invocation.
Control: Configure core.editor=<test-helper> through SimpleGitOptions.config and invoke a benign Git task. The default plugin should throw GitPluginError before spawning Git because core.editor is present in preventUnsafeConfig.
Bypass: Configure trailer.audit.cmd=<test-helper> through the same option and invoke Git with the equivalent argv shape:
git -c trailer.audit.cmd=<test-helper> interpret-trailers --trailer audit:<value> <input-file>
A vulnerable build does not raise GitPluginError; Git invokes the test helper while processing the trailer. Confirm the helper invocation, then remove test artifacts.
Impact
An attacker who controls the stated configuration input can cause Git to execute a shell command as the Node.js application process. The impact is bounded by that process's filesystem, network, and service permissions. Applications that do not expose untrusted configuration or command arguments to simple-git are outside this threat model.
Affected versions
Commit 6b3c631eadea81f80ed10f6dec7d19a9db4d7084 introduced the default unsafe-operation plugin, and simple-git@3.15.0 is the first release confirmed to contain it. Its implementation only rejected protocol.allow configuration, leaving trailer-command configuration unblocked.
The latest simple-git release, 3.36.0, still lacks a trailer-command matcher. The current main branch also lacks one. No released remediation was identified.
Remediation
Default-deny configuration keys that can trigger executable behavior, or add a dedicated unsafe category that rejects trailer.<token>.cmd before spawning Git unless the application explicitly opts in.
Evaluate trailer.<token>.command alongside .cmd, because Git documents it as related command behavior. Add parser and integration tests for leading -c, configured instance prefixes, and git config write forms, asserting that no Git child process is spawned without an explicit unsafe opt-in.
Evidence
simple-git@3.15.0was released on 2022-11-12 and contains the initial unsafe-operation plugin.simple-git@3.36.0was released on 2026-04-12; its parser source does not matchtrailer.<token>.cmd.mainretains the missing matcher inpackages/argv-parser/src/vulnerabilities/detect-vulnerable-config-writes.ts.- Git v2.39.5 documents the trailer command behavior in
Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt. - PR #1167 expanded other configuration checks but did not add a trailer-command matcher and is not release-backed as a remediation.
- This review verified repository, release, and source artifacts through GitHub; it did not independently execute the runtime reproduction.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "simple-git"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.15.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-102828"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-184",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-10-05T23:48:14Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-29T19:17:25Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Affected product\n\nThe default `blockUnsafeOperationsPlugin` in `simple-git` when an application permits untrusted values to reach `SimpleGitOptions.config` or Git inline configuration arguments such as `-c \u003ckey\u003e=\u003cvalue\u003e`.\n\n## Summary\n\n`trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.cmd` is not recognized as unsafe by the default guard. Therefore, a configured inline value reaches Git without a `GitPluginError`.\n\nGit documents `trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.cmd` as a shell command invoked by `git interpret-trailers`. An application that relies on the default plugin to reject unsafe configuration can therefore execute a command supplied through an untrusted trailer-command configuration value.\n\n## Technical details\n\n`simple-git/src/lib/git-factory.ts` installs `commandConfigPrefixingPlugin` before `blockUnsafeOperationsPlugin`. The prefixing plugin in `simple-git/src/lib/plugins/command-config-prefixing-plugin.ts` turns every `SimpleGitOptions.config` entry into `-c \u003ckey\u003e=\u003cvalue\u003e` before the unsafe-operation plugin evaluates the final argv.\n\nIn `simple-git@3.36.0`, `blockUnsafeOperationsPlugin` delegates to `@simple-git/argv-parser`. `packages/argv-parser/src/vulnerabilities/detect-vulnerable-config-writes.ts` compares parsed configuration writes against `preventUnsafeConfig`. That list has no matcher for `trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.cmd`, so the invocation is allowed.\n\nGit v2.39.5\u0027s `Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt` states that `trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.cmd` specifies a shell command called to generate or modify a trailer.\n\n## Preconditions\n\nThe application must use an affected `simple-git` version with the default unsafe-operation plugin active and must pass attacker-controlled data into instance configuration or Git command arguments that configure `trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.cmd`.\n\nThe invoked Git binary must support the documented trailer-command behavior, and the application must execute `git interpret-trailers` with the attacker-controlled configuration in scope. The command runs with the operating-system identity and permissions of the Node.js process.\n\n## Verification\n\nUse an isolated test environment and a harmless executable test helper that records only its invocation.\n\n**Control:** Configure `core.editor=\u003ctest-helper\u003e` through `SimpleGitOptions.config` and invoke a benign Git task. The default plugin should throw `GitPluginError` before spawning Git because `core.editor` is present in `preventUnsafeConfig`.\n\n**Bypass:** Configure `trailer.audit.cmd=\u003ctest-helper\u003e` through the same option and invoke Git with the equivalent argv shape:\n\n`git -c trailer.audit.cmd=\u003ctest-helper\u003e interpret-trailers --trailer audit:\u003cvalue\u003e \u003cinput-file\u003e`\n\nA vulnerable build does not raise `GitPluginError`; Git invokes the test helper while processing the trailer. Confirm the helper invocation, then remove test artifacts.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker who controls the stated configuration input can cause Git to execute a shell command as the Node.js application process. The impact is bounded by that process\u0027s filesystem, network, and service permissions. Applications that do not expose untrusted configuration or command arguments to `simple-git` are outside this threat model.\n\n## Affected versions\n\nCommit `6b3c631eadea81f80ed10f6dec7d19a9db4d7084` introduced the default unsafe-operation plugin, and `simple-git@3.15.0` is the first release confirmed to contain it. Its implementation only rejected `protocol.allow` configuration, leaving trailer-command configuration unblocked.\n\nThe latest `simple-git` release, `3.36.0`, still lacks a trailer-command matcher. The current `main` branch also lacks one. No released remediation was identified.\n\n## Remediation\n\nDefault-deny configuration keys that can trigger executable behavior, or add a dedicated unsafe category that rejects `trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.cmd` before spawning Git unless the application explicitly opts in.\n\nEvaluate `trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.command` alongside `.cmd`, because Git documents it as related command behavior. Add parser and integration tests for leading `-c`, configured instance prefixes, and `git config` write forms, asserting that no Git child process is spawned without an explicit unsafe opt-in.\n\n## Evidence\n\n- `simple-git@3.15.0` was released on 2022-11-12 and contains the initial unsafe-operation plugin.\n- `simple-git@3.36.0` was released on 2026-04-12; its parser source does not match `trailer.\u003ctoken\u003e.cmd`.\n- `main` retains the missing matcher in `packages/argv-parser/src/vulnerabilities/detect-vulnerable-config-writes.ts`.\n- Git v2.39.5 documents the trailer command behavior in `Documentation/git-interpret-trailers.txt`.\n- PR #1167 expanded other configuration checks but did not add a trailer-command matcher and is not release-backed as a remediation.\n- This review verified repository, release, and source artifacts through GitHub; it did not independently execute the runtime reproduction.",
"id": "GHSA-x6jw-m9v5-85vh",
"modified": "2026-10-05T23:48:14Z",
"published": "2026-10-05T23:48:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js/security/advisories/GHSA-x6jw-m9v5-85vh"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-102828"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js/pull/1198"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js/commit/d762810c13b331ff1e5eb24c0b434646d2a8d1b3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js/releases/tag/simple-git@4.0.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "simple-git unsafe-operation guard does not block trailer command configuration"
}
GHSA-X6M6-XCCC-227G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-10 12:31 – Updated: 2026-08-10 12:31An OS command injection vulnerability in NASA HyperCP (main branch) allows a network-adjacent attacker who can intercept or spoof responses from oceandata.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov to execute arbitrary system commands on the researcher's workstation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72579"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-10T11:17:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An OS command injection vulnerability in NASA HyperCP (main branch) allows a network-adjacent attacker who can intercept or spoof responses from oceandata.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov to execute arbitrary system commands on the researcher\u0027s workstation.",
"id": "GHSA-x6m6-xccc-227g",
"modified": "2026-08-10T12:31:53Z",
"published": "2026-08-10T12:31:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72579"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nasa/HyperCP"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nasa/HyperCP/blob/main/Source/OBPGSession.py"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X6MP-5R48-V755
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-06 03:30 – Updated: 2025-08-06 03:30Kenwood DMX958XR ReadMVGImage Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Kenwood DMX958XR devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the ReadMVGImage function. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-26313.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8654"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-06T02:15:54Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Kenwood DMX958XR ReadMVGImage Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Kenwood DMX958XR devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the ReadMVGImage function. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-26313.",
"id": "GHSA-x6mp-5r48-v755",
"modified": "2025-08-06T03:30:27Z",
"published": "2025-08-06T03:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8654"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-802"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X6MP-947F-R6PM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:18 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:18InHand Networks IR615 Router's Versions 2.3.0.r4724 and 2.3.0.r4870 are vulnerable to an attacker using a traceroute tool to inject commands into the device. This may allow the attacker to remotely run commands on behalf of the device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-38478"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-19T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "InHand Networks IR615 Router\u0027s Versions 2.3.0.r4724 and 2.3.0.r4870 are vulnerable to an attacker using a traceroute tool to inject commands into the device. This may allow the attacker to remotely run commands on behalf of the device.",
"id": "GHSA-x6mp-947f-r6pm",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:18:02Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:18:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-38478"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-21-280-05"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-X6R5-P9FX-6346
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:50 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:31A command injection vulnerability was discovered on the Zyxel EMG2926 home router with firmware V1.00(AAQT.4)b8. The vulnerability is located in the diagnostic tools, specifically the nslookup function. A malicious user may exploit numerous vectors to execute arbitrary commands on the router, such as the ping_ip parameter to the expert/maintenance/diagnostic/nslookup URI.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-6884"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-04-06T17:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A command injection vulnerability was discovered on the Zyxel EMG2926 home router with firmware V1.00(AAQT.4)b8. The vulnerability is located in the diagnostic tools, specifically the nslookup function. A malicious user may exploit numerous vectors to execute arbitrary commands on the router, such as the ping_ip parameter to the expert/maintenance/diagnostic/nslookup URI.",
"id": "GHSA-x6r5-p9fx-6346",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:31:19Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:50:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-6884"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2017-6884"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/41782"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-4.3
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
Mitigation MIT-28
Strategy: Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
Mitigation
If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
- If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Mitigation
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.