Goal Reached Thanks to every supporter — we hit 100%!

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%

CWE-77 (在命令中使用的特殊元素转义处理不恰当(命令注入)) — Vulnerability Class 1185

1185 vulnerabilities classified as CWE-77 (在命令中使用的特殊元素转义处理不恰当(命令注入)). AI Chinese analysis included.

CWE-77 represents a critical input validation weakness where software constructs commands using untrusted data without properly sanitizing special characters. Attackers typically exploit this by injecting malicious payloads, such as semicolons or pipe operators, into user-supplied fields to alter the intended command structure. This allows them to execute arbitrary system commands, potentially leading to full system compromise, data exfiltration, or denial of service. To prevent such vulnerabilities, developers must strictly validate and sanitize all external inputs, ensuring that only expected data formats are processed. Utilizing parameterized APIs or safe command execution libraries instead of direct string concatenation significantly reduces risk. Additionally, implementing the principle of least privilege for application processes limits the potential impact of successful injection attempts, thereby enhancing overall system security against command injection attacks.

MITRE CWE Description
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. Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks.
Common Consequences (1)
Integrity, Confidentiality, AvailabilityExecute Unauthorized Code or Commands
If a malicious user injects a character (such as a semi-colon) that delimits the end of one command and the beginning of another, it may be possible to then insert an entirely new and unrelated command that was not intended to be executed. This gives an attacker a privilege or capability that they w…
Mitigations (5)
Architecture and DesignIf at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
ImplementationIf possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
ImplementationAssume 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…
OperationRun time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
System ConfigurationAssign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
Examples (2)
Consider a "CWE Differentiator" application that uses an an LLM generative AI based "chatbot" to explain the difference between two weaknesses. As input, it accepts two CWE IDs, constructs a prompt string, sends the prompt to the chatbot, and prints the results. The prompt string effectively acts as a command to the chatbot component. Assume that invokeChatbot() calls the chatbot and returns the …
prompt = "Explain the difference between {} and {}".format(arg1, arg2) result = invokeChatbot(prompt) resultHTML = encodeForHTML(result) print resultHTML
Bad · Python
Explain the difference between CWE-77 and CWE-78
Informative
Consider the following program. It intends to perform an "ls -l" on an input filename. The validate_name() subroutine performs validation on the input to make sure that only alphanumeric and "-" characters are allowed, which avoids path traversal (CWE-22) and OS command injection (CWE-78) weaknesses. Only filenames like "abc" or "d-e-f" are intended to be allowed.
my $arg = GetArgument("filename"); do_listing($arg); sub do_listing { my($fname) = @_; if (! validate_name($fname)) { print "Error: name is not well-formed!\n"; return; } # build command my $cmd = "/bin/ls -l $fname"; system($cmd); } sub validate_name { my($name) = @_; if ($name =~ /^[\w\-]+$/) { return(1); } else { return(0); } }
Bad · Perl
if ($name =~ /^\w[\w\-]+$/) ...
Good · Perl
CVE IDTitleCVSSSeverityPublished
CVE-2025-55227 Microsoft SQL Server Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability — Microsoft SQL Server 2016 Service Pack 3 (GDR) 8.8 High2025-09-09
CVE-2025-10107 TRENDnet TEW-831DR formSysCmd command injection — TEW-831DR 4.7 Medium2025-09-09
CVE-2025-9161 Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Optix Remote Code Execution Vulnerability — FactoryTalk Optix 9.8AICriticalAI2025-09-09
CVE-2025-10123 D-Link DIR-823X set_static_leases sub_415028 command injection — DIR-823X 7.3 High2025-09-09
CVE-2025-7388 Authenticated Command Injection via configuration parameter manipulation in exposed RMI interface — OpenEdge 8.4 High2025-09-04
CVE-2025-58358 Markdownify is vulnerable to command injection through pptx-to-markdown tool — markdownify-mcp 7.5 High2025-09-04
CVE-2025-9935 TOTOLINK N600R cstecgi.cgi sub_4159F8 command injection — N600R 7.3 High2025-09-03
CVE-2025-9934 TOTOLINK X5000R cstecgi.cgi sub_410C34 command injection — X5000R 6.3 Medium2025-09-03
CVE-2025-58178 Command Injection via sonarqube-scan-action GitHub Action — sonarqube-scan-action 7.8 High2025-09-02
CVE-2025-9769 D-Link DI-7400G+ mng_platform.asp sub_478D28 command injection — DI-7400G+ 4.1 Medium2025-09-01
CVE-2025-44015 HybridDesk Station — HybridDesk Station 8.0 -2025-08-29
CVE-2025-30264 QTS, QuTS hero — QTS 8.8 -2025-08-29
CVE-2025-29887 QuRouter 2.5 — QuRouter 7.2 -2025-08-29
CVE-2025-9654 AiondaDotCom mcp-ssh server-simple.mjs command injection — mcp-ssh 6.3 Medium2025-08-29
CVE-2025-9603 Telesquare TLR-2005KSH internet.cgi command injection — TLR-2005KSH 6.3 Medium2025-08-29
CVE-2025-9586 Comfast CF-N1 webmgnt wireless_device_dissoc command injection — CF-N1 6.3 Medium2025-08-28
CVE-2025-9585 Comfast CF-N1 webmgnt wifilith_delete_pic_file command injection — CF-N1 6.3 Medium2025-08-28
CVE-2025-9584 Comfast CF-N1 webmgnt update_interface_png command injection — CF-N1 6.3 Medium2025-08-28
CVE-2025-9583 Comfast CF-N1 webmgnt ping_config command injection — CF-N1 6.3 Medium2025-08-28
CVE-2025-9582 Comfast CF-N1 webmgnt ntp_timezone command injection — CF-N1 6.3 Medium2025-08-28
CVE-2025-9581 Comfast CF-N1 webmgnt multi_pppoe command injection — CF-N1 6.3 Medium2025-08-28
CVE-2025-41451 Post-Authentication OS Command Injection RCE in Danfoss AK-SM8xxA Series — AK-SM8xxA Series 7.2AIHighAI2025-08-22
CVE-2025-57733 JetBrains TeamCity 命令注入漏洞 — TeamCity 5.5 Medium2025-08-20
CVE-2025-55294 Command Injection via `format` option in screenshot-desktop — screenshot-desktop 9.8 Critical2025-08-19
CVE-2025-9149 Wavlink WL-NU516U1 wireless.cgi sub_4032E4 command injection — WL-NU516U1 6.3 Medium2025-08-19
CVE-2025-55283 aiven-db-migrate allows Privilege Escalation through use of psql during migration — aiven-db-migrate 9.1 Critical2025-08-18
CVE-2025-9090 Tenda AC20 Telnet Service telnet websFormDefine command injection — AC20 6.3 Medium2025-08-17
CVE-2025-20306 Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Software Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Firepower Management Center 4.9 Medium2025-08-14
CVE-2025-8956 D-Link DIR‑818L ssdpcgi cgibin getenv command injection — DIR‑818L 6.3 Medium2025-08-14
CVE-2025-8937 TOTOLINK N350R formSysCmd command injection — N350R 6.3 Medium2025-08-14

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-77 (在命令中使用的特殊元素转义处理不恰当(命令注入)) represent 1185 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.