CWE-88
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
732 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-2MCC-MPMM-5889
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 06:57 – Updated: 2022-05-01 06:57Argument injection vulnerability in the URI handler in Skype 2.0..104 and 2.5..0 through 2.5.*.78 for Windows allows remote authorized attackers to download arbitrary files via a URL that contains certain command-line switches.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2006-2312"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-88",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2006-05-19T21:02:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Argument injection vulnerability in the URI handler in Skype 2.0.*.104 and 2.5.*.0 through 2.5.*.78 for Windows allows remote authorized attackers to download arbitrary files via a URL that contains certain command-line switches.",
"id": "GHSA-2mcc-mpmm-5889",
"modified": "2022-05-01T06:57:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T06:57:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2006-2312"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/26557"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2006-05/0549.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/20154"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/466428"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.osvdb.org/25658"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/434707/30/4860/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/18038"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.skype.com/security/skype-sb-2006-001.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2006/1871"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-2Q9P-FQXR-C55C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-13 03:30 – Updated: 2024-11-13 03:30Argument injection in Ivanti Connect Secure before version 22.7R2.1 and 9.1R18.7 and Ivanti Policy Secure before version 22.7R1.1 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to achieve remote code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39712"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-13T02:15:19Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Argument injection in Ivanti Connect Secure before version 22.7R2.1 and 9.1R18.7 and Ivanti Policy Secure before version 22.7R1.1 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to achieve remote code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-2q9p-fqxr-c55c",
"modified": "2024-11-13T03:30:47Z",
"published": "2024-11-13T03:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39712"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/Security-Advisory-Ivanti-Connect-Secure-ICS-Ivanti-Policy-Secure-IPS-Ivanti-Secure-Access-Client-ISAC-Multiple-CVEs"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2V4H-4VVV-J9PH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-10 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-19 00:00An argument injection vulnerability in the browser-based authentication component of the Magnitude Simba Amazon Redshift JDBC Driver 1.2.40 through 1.2.55 may allow a local user to execute code. NOTE: this is different from CVE-2022-29972.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-30240"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-09T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An argument injection vulnerability in the browser-based authentication component of the Magnitude Simba Amazon Redshift JDBC Driver 1.2.40 through 1.2.55 may allow a local user to execute code. NOTE: this is different from CVE-2022-29972.",
"id": "GHSA-2v4h-4vvv-j9ph",
"modified": "2022-05-19T00:00:34Z",
"published": "2022-05-10T00:00:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-30240"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://insightsoftware.com/trust/security/advisories/redshift-and-athena-driver-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.magnitude.com/products/data-connectivity"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-32QJ-4PCR-VQHP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:08 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:08By abusing the 'install rpm info detail' command, an attacker can escape the restricted clish shell on affected versions of Ivanti MobileIron Core. This issue was fixed in version 11.1.0.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-3540"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-22T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "By abusing the \u0027install rpm info detail\u0027 command, an attacker can escape the restricted clish shell on affected versions of Ivanti MobileIron Core. This issue was fixed in version 11.1.0.0.",
"id": "GHSA-32qj-4pcr-vqhp",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:08:55Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:08:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-3540"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/06/02/untitled-cve-2021-3198-and-cve-2021-3540-mobileiron-shell-escape-privilege-escalation-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3325-V43H-43RV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-01 15:21 – Updated: 2026-10-01 15:21JupyterLab's PyPI extension manager runs python -m pip uninstall with the extension name taken from the request body. ExtensionHandler.post validates the name for cmd=install but not for cmd=uninstall, so a name that begins with - reaches the command line and pip reads it as an option rather than as a package.
cmdline = [
sys.executable,
"-m",
"pip",
"uninstall",
"--yes",
"--no-input",
extension,
]
An extension name of the form -r followed by a path therefore made pip open that path as a requirements file. pip's parse error quotes the line it could not read and names the file it came from, and JupyterLab returned that error in the response body, so the line reached the requester.
This has security implications only for deployments that combine all of the following:
- the (default) PyPI Extension Manager enabled, so that uninstall requests reach pip;
- an authenticated account permitted to call the extension API; and
- kernels and terminals disabled or delegated to remote hosts (otherwise a user with kernel access can read the same files and make the same outbound requests directly, regardless of this endpoint)
Unlike GHSA-37w4-hwhx-4rc4 and GHSA-89vp-jrxv-24w8, this does not need an allowlist or blocklist to be configured. The uninstall path never consulted the listing.
Impact
An authenticated user gains a read of server-side files and an outbound request from the server, both outside the confinement that the contents root and the disabled kernels were meant to provide. The user cannot choose which line of a file is returned, and cannot write content of their choosing.
Reading files the account cannot reach
-r<path> makes pip open the path as a requirements file. The first line that pip cannot parse as a requirement comes back in the response together with the path. Blank lines and # comments are skipped. A line that is a valid package name is accepted silently, and the request answers 201 with no message, so a secret made only of letters, digits, dots, hyphens and underscores is not disclosed. One line is returned per request, and the requester cannot select which one.
The same option distinguishes a missing path ([Errno 2] No such file or directory), an unreadable one ([Errno 13] Permission denied) and a directory ([Errno 21] Is a directory), so any path on the host can be probed for existence and readability.
Reaching hosts and ports the account cannot reach
-r also accepts a URL. pip fetches it with an ordinary GET from the server's network position and reflects the first unparsable line of the response body the same way. A response whose body is a single line comes back in full. In a deployment where the single-user server sits inside a private network, this reaches internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints that the user has no other route to.
Writing files
--log=<path> makes pip create that file if it is absent and append its own log to it otherwise. The content is pip's log text, not text the requester chooses, so the effect is to create files at chosen paths and to corrupt a file that has to parse, such as a configuration file read at the next start.
What this does not add
The same endpoint already uninstalls any installed package when it is given an ordinary, valid package name, so the injection adds no availability impact beyond what the extension manager already permits. Deployments that treat that as unacceptable should use the read-only extension manager, as described below.
pip refuses --python after a subcommand name, and ignores editable entries in an uninstall requirements file, so neither gives code execution.
Patches
JupyterLab v4.6.4 and v4.5.11 contain the patch. The uninstall name is now validated as a PyPI package name in both the HTTP handler and PyPIExtensionManager.uninstall, and the pip command line carries an explicit -- before the package operand.
Users of applications that depend on JupyterLab, such as Notebook v7+, should update jupyterlab package too.
Workarounds
Deployments wanting to disable programmatic extension installation and removal entirely can switch to the read-only extension manager:
--LabApp.extension_manager=readonly
or the following traitlet:
c.LabApp.extension_manager = 'readonly'
You can confirm that the read-only manager is in use from GUI:
Users lose the ability to install and remove extensions from the Extension Manager; extensions must then be installed by an administrator in the environment.
Note: an egress policy that blocks outbound requests from the single-user server limits the reach of the URL variant, but does not address the file read or the file write.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.6.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "jupyterlab"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.6.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.6.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.5.10"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "jupyterlab"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-102904"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-209",
"CWE-88",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-10-01T15:21:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-29T21:17:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "JupyterLab\u0027s PyPI extension manager runs `python -m pip uninstall` with the extension name taken from the request body. `ExtensionHandler.post` validates the name for `cmd=install` but not for `cmd=uninstall`, so a name that begins with `-` reaches the command line and pip reads it as an option rather than as a package.\n\n```python\ncmdline = [\n sys.executable,\n \"-m\",\n \"pip\",\n \"uninstall\",\n \"--yes\",\n \"--no-input\",\n extension,\n]\n```\n\nAn extension name of the form `-r` followed by a path therefore made pip open that path as a requirements file. pip\u0027s parse error quotes the line it could not read and names the file it came from, and JupyterLab returned that error in the response body, so the line reached the requester.\n\nThis has security implications only for deployments that combine all of the following:\n\n- the (default) PyPI Extension Manager enabled, so that uninstall requests reach pip;\n- an authenticated account permitted to call the extension API; and\n- kernels and terminals disabled or delegated to remote hosts (otherwise a user with kernel access can read the same files and make the same outbound requests directly, regardless of this endpoint)\n\nUnlike [GHSA-37w4-hwhx-4rc4](https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/security/advisories/GHSA-37w4-hwhx-4rc4) and [GHSA-89vp-jrxv-24w8](https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/security/advisories/GHSA-89vp-jrxv-24w8), this does not need an allowlist or blocklist to be configured. The uninstall path never consulted the listing.\n\n### Impact\n\nAn authenticated user gains a read of server-side files and an outbound request from the server, both outside the confinement that the contents root and the disabled kernels were meant to provide. The user cannot choose which line of a file is returned, and cannot write content of their choosing.\n\n#### Reading files the account cannot reach\n\n`-r\u003cpath\u003e` makes pip open the path as a requirements file. The first line that pip cannot parse as a requirement comes back in the response together with the path. Blank lines and `#` comments are skipped. A line that is a valid package name is accepted silently, and the request answers 201 with no message, so a secret made only of letters, digits, dots, hyphens and underscores is not disclosed. One line is returned per request, and the requester cannot select which one.\n\nThe same option distinguishes a missing path (`[Errno 2] No such file or directory`), an unreadable one (`[Errno 13] Permission denied`) and a directory (`[Errno 21] Is a directory`), so any path on the host can be probed for existence and readability.\n\n#### Reaching hosts and ports the account cannot reach\n\n`-r` also accepts a URL. pip fetches it with an ordinary GET from the server\u0027s network position and reflects the first unparsable line of the response body the same way. A response whose body is a single line comes back in full. In a deployment where the single-user server sits inside a private network, this reaches internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints that the user has no other route to.\n\n#### Writing files\n\n`--log=\u003cpath\u003e` makes pip create that file if it is absent and append its own log to it otherwise. The content is pip\u0027s log text, not text the requester chooses, so the effect is to create files at chosen paths and to corrupt a file that has to parse, such as a configuration file read at the next start.\n\n#### What this does not add\n\nThe same endpoint already uninstalls any installed package when it is given an ordinary, valid package name, so the injection adds no availability impact beyond what the extension manager already permits. Deployments that treat that as unacceptable should use the read-only extension manager, as described below.\n\npip refuses `--python` after a subcommand name, and ignores editable entries in an uninstall requirements file, so neither gives code execution.\n\n### Patches\n\nJupyterLab [`v4.6.4`](https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/releases/tag/v4.6.4) and [`v4.5.11`](https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/releases/tag/v4.5.11) contain the patch. The uninstall name is now validated as a PyPI package name in both the HTTP handler and `PyPIExtensionManager.uninstall`, and the pip command line carries an explicit `--` before the package operand.\n\nUsers of applications that depend on JupyterLab, such as Notebook v7+, should update `jupyterlab` package too.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nDeployments wanting to disable programmatic extension installation and removal entirely can switch to the read-only extension manager:\n\n```bash\n--LabApp.extension_manager=readonly\n```\n\nor the following traitlet:\n\n```python\nc.LabApp.extension_manager = \u0027readonly\u0027\n```\n\nYou can confirm that the read-only manager is in use from GUI:\n\n\u003cimg width=\"293\" height=\"293\" alt=\"image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8016c809-633e-4ed0-a5bc-6bc4793caa0f\" /\u003e\n\nUsers lose the ability to install and remove extensions from the Extension Manager; extensions must then be installed by an administrator in the environment.\n\nNote: an egress policy that blocks outbound requests from the single-user server limits the reach of the URL variant, but does not address the file read or the file write.",
"id": "GHSA-3325-v43h-43rv",
"modified": "2026-10-01T15:21:17Z",
"published": "2026-10-01T15:21:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/security/advisories/GHSA-3325-v43h-43rv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-102904"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/commit/9e1951e57da499ca66ef5e0caf68e71ad2e3d1a5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/commit/a274a8276b9185d03efd4c3c20713d3137ac49e6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/commit/e277bc958e737130ac47b6c5078d08b29298828f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/releases/tag/v4.5.11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab/releases/tag/v4.6.4"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "JupyterLab: Argument injection in JupyterLab extension uninstall exposes server-readable files and internal URLs"
}
GHSA-33FM-6GP7-4P47
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 16:37 – Updated: 2026-02-19 20:30Impact
The SSH management console did not validate the passed input while adding the SSH host key, which could lead to an argument injection to ssh-add.
Patches
- https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/pull/17722
Workarounds
Properly limit access to the management console.
References
This issue was reported to us by alexb_616 via HackerOne.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Weblate"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.16.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24126"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T16:37:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T00:16:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe SSH management console did not validate the passed input while adding the SSH host key, which could lead to an argument injection to `ssh-add`.\n\n### Patches\n* https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/pull/17722\n\n### Workarounds\nProperly limit access to the management console.\n\n### References\nThis issue was reported to us by [alexb_616](https://hackerone.com/alexb_616) via HackerOne.",
"id": "GHSA-33fm-6gp7-4p47",
"modified": "2026-02-19T20:30:31Z",
"published": "2026-02-17T16:37:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/security/advisories/GHSA-33fm-6gp7-4p47"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24126"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/pull/17722"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/commit/78773cc141ce0a97900c11341e6cf856451395fd"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Weblate has an argument injection in management console"
}
GHSA-34JC-7WCF-7J89
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:45Multiple vulnerabilities in the CLI of Cisco IOS XE SD-WAN Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to access the underlying operating system with root privileges. These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient input validation of certain CLI commands. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by authenticating to the device and submitting crafted input to the CLI. The attacker must be authenticated as an administrative user to execute the affected commands. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to access the underlying operating system with root privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1383"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-24T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in the CLI of Cisco IOS XE SD-WAN Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to access the underlying operating system with root privileges. These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient input validation of certain CLI commands. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by authenticating to the device and submitting crafted input to the CLI. The attacker must be authenticated as an administrative user to execute the affected commands. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to access the underlying operating system with root privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-34jc-7wcf-7j89",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:45:12Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/orangecertcc/security-research/security/advisories/GHSA-vw54-f9mw-g46r"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-xesdwpinj-V4weeqzU"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-34P5-JP77-FCRC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-25 19:36 – Updated: 2023-02-15 18:37Impact
An issue was discovered in Rancher from versions 2.5.0 up to and including 2.5.16, 2.6.0 up to and including 2.6.9 and 2.7.0, where a command injection vulnerability is present in the Rancher Git package. This package uses the underlying Git binary available in the Rancher container image to execute Git operations.
Specially crafted commands, when not properly disambiguated, can cause confusion when executed through Git, resulting in command injection in the underlying Rancher host.
This issue can potentially be exploited in Rancher in two ways:
- Adding an untrusted Helm catalog, in the Catalogs menu, that contains maliciously designed repo URL configuration in Helm charts.
- Modifying the URL configuration used to download KDM (Kontainer Driver Metadata) releases.
By default, only the Rancher admin has permission to manage both configurations for the local cluster (the cluster where Rancher is provisioned).
Note: More information about this category of issue in version control system (VCS) tools are available in Snyk's blog post.
Workarounds
Except for only adding trusted catalogs and the KDM URL to Rancher, there is no other workaround besides updating Rancher to a patched version.
Patches
Patched versions include releases 2.5.17, 2.6.10, 2.7.1 and later versions.
It is also important to update to a patched version in case Rancher or its standalone Git package implementation is used as a Go library instead of the application itself. Otherwise, this vulnerability might affect your dependent code.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- Reach out to SUSE Rancher Security team for security related inquiries.
- Open an issue in Rancher repository.
- Verify our support matrix and product support lifecycle.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.6.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.6.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.7.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.7.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-43758"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-78",
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-01-25T19:36:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-07T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nAn issue was discovered in Rancher from versions 2.5.0 up to and including 2.5.16, 2.6.0 up to and including 2.6.9 and 2.7.0, where a command injection vulnerability is present in the Rancher Git package. This package uses the underlying Git binary available in the Rancher container image to execute Git operations.\n\nSpecially crafted commands, when not properly disambiguated, can cause confusion when executed through Git, resulting in command injection in the underlying Rancher host.\n\nThis issue can potentially be exploited in Rancher in two ways:\n\n1. Adding an untrusted Helm catalog, in the Catalogs menu, that contains maliciously designed repo URL configuration in Helm charts.\n2. Modifying the URL configuration used to download KDM (Kontainer Driver Metadata) releases.\n\nBy default, only the Rancher admin has permission to manage both configurations for the local cluster (the cluster where Rancher is provisioned).\n\nNote: More information about this category of issue in version control system (VCS) tools are available in Snyk\u0027s [blog post](https://snyk.io/blog/argument-injection-when-using-git-and-mercurial/).\n\n### Workarounds\n\nExcept for only adding trusted catalogs and the KDM URL to Rancher, there is no other workaround besides updating Rancher to a patched version.\n\n### Patches\n\nPatched versions include releases 2.5.17, 2.6.10, 2.7.1 and later versions.\n\nIt is also important to update to a patched version in case Rancher or its standalone Git package implementation is used as a Go library instead of the application itself. Otherwise, this vulnerability might affect your dependent code.\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n\n* Reach out to [SUSE Rancher Security team](https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/policy) for security related inquiries.\n* Open an issue in [Rancher](https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/new/choose) repository.\n* Verify our [support matrix](https://www.suse.com/suse-rancher/support-matrix/all-supported-versions/) and [product support lifecycle](https://www.suse.com/lifecycle/).",
"id": "GHSA-34p5-jp77-fcrc",
"modified": "2023-02-15T18:37:48Z",
"published": "2023-01-25T19:36:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/advisories/GHSA-34p5-jp77-fcrc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-43758"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205294"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rancher/rancher"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Command injection in Rancher Git package"
}
GHSA-34PX-6WV4-79CH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-11 21:31 – Updated: 2026-03-11 21:31An input validation vulnerability was reported in the LenovoProductivitySystemAddin used in Lenovo Vantage and Lenovo Baiying that could allow a local authenticated user to terminate arbitrary processes with elevated privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-1717"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-11T21:16:15Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An input validation vulnerability was reported in the LenovoProductivitySystemAddin used in Lenovo Vantage and Lenovo Baiying that could allow a local authenticated user to terminate arbitrary processes with elevated privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-34px-6wv4-79ch",
"modified": "2026-03-11T21:31:04Z",
"published": "2026-03-11T21:31:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1717"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://iknow.lenovo.com.cn/detail/438815"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/LEN-213044"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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-34XQ-28MR-Q8V9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-10 21:30 – Updated: 2024-12-10 21:30Argument injection in Ivanti Connect Secure before version 22.7R2.4 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to achieve remote code execution
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-11633"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-10T19:15:19Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Argument injection in Ivanti Connect Secure before version 22.7R2.4 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to achieve remote code execution",
"id": "GHSA-34xq-28mr-q8v9",
"modified": "2024-12-10T21:30:52Z",
"published": "2024-12-10T21:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-11633"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://forums.ivanti.com/s/article/December-2024-Security-Advisory-Ivanti-Connect-Secure-ICS-and-Ivanti-Policy-Secure-IPS-Multiple-CVEs"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Strategy: Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
Mitigation
Strategy: Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
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
Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
Mitigation
- Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
- Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
Mitigation
When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
Mitigation
When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
Mitigation
Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
CAPEC-137: Parameter Injection
An adversary manipulates the content of request parameters for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some parameter encodings use text characters as separators. For example, parameters in a HTTP GET message are encoded as name-value pairs separated by an ampersand (&). If an attacker can supply text strings that are used to fill in these parameters, then they can inject special characters used in the encoding scheme to add or modify parameters. For example, if user input is fed directly into an HTTP GET request and the user provides the value "myInput&new_param=myValue", then the input parameter is set to myInput, but a new parameter (new_param) is also added with a value of myValue. This can significantly change the meaning of the query that is processed by the server. Any encoding scheme where parameters are identified and separated by text characters is potentially vulnerable to this attack - the HTTP GET encoding used above is just one example.
CAPEC-174: Flash Parameter Injection
An adversary takes advantage of improper data validation to inject malicious global parameters into a Flash file embedded within an HTML document. Flash files can leverage user-submitted data to configure the Flash document and access the embedding HTML document.
CAPEC-41: Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads
This type of attack involves an attacker leveraging meta-characters in email headers to inject improper behavior into email programs. Email software has become increasingly sophisticated and feature-rich. In addition, email applications are ubiquitous and connected directly to the Web making them ideal targets to launch and propagate attacks. As the user demand for new functionality in email applications grows, they become more like browsers with complex rendering and plug in routines. As more email functionality is included and abstracted from the user, this creates opportunities for attackers. Virtually all email applications do not list email header information by default, however the email header contains valuable attacker vectors for the attacker to exploit particularly if the behavior of the email client application is known. Meta-characters are hidden from the user, but can contain scripts, enumerations, probes, and other attacks against the user's system.
CAPEC-460: HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)
An adversary adds duplicate HTTP GET/POST parameters by injecting query string delimiters. Via HPP it may be possible to override existing hardcoded HTTP parameters, modify the application behaviors, access and, potentially exploit, uncontrollable variables, and bypass input validation checkpoints and WAF rules.
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.