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

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1310 CNY

100%
Buy Us a Coffee

CWE-78 (OS命令中使用的特殊元素转义处理不恰当(OS命令注入)) — Vulnerability Class 2933

2933 vulnerabilities classified as CWE-78 (OS命令中使用的特殊元素转义处理不恰当(OS命令注入)). AI Chinese analysis included.

CWE-78 represents a critical input validation weakness where software constructs operating system commands using untrusted external data without proper sanitization. Attackers typically exploit this by injecting malicious shell metacharacters, such as semicolons or pipes, into user-supplied fields like form inputs or URL parameters. This manipulation allows the attacker to alter the intended command structure, enabling arbitrary code execution, data exfiltration, or complete system compromise. To mitigate this risk, developers must strictly avoid passing user input directly to OS command interpreters. Instead, they should utilize safe, language-specific APIs that do not invoke the shell, or implement rigorous input validation and parameterization techniques. By treating all external data as inherently untrusted and applying strict allow-list filtering, organizations can effectively neutralize special elements and prevent command injection vulnerabilities.

MITRE CWE Description
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. This weakness can lead to a vulnerability in environments in which the attacker does not have direct access to the operating system, such as in web applications. Alternately, if the weakness occurs in a privileged program, it could allow the attacker to specify commands that normally would not be accessible, or to call alternate commands with privileges that the attacker does not have. The problem is exacerbated if the compromised process does not follow the principle of least privilege, because the attacker-controlled commands may run with special system privileges that increases the amount of damage. There are at least two subtypes of OS command injection: The application intends to execute a single, fixed program that is under its own control. It intends to use externally-supplied inputs as arguments to that program. For example, the program might use system("nslookup [HOSTNAME]") to run nslookup and allow the user to supply a HOSTNAME, which is used as an argument. Attackers cannot prevent nslookup from executing. However, if the program does not remove command separators from the HOSTNAME argument, attackers could place the separators into the arguments, which allows them to execute their own program afte…
Common Consequences (1)
Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-RepudiationExecute Unauthorized Code or Commands, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, Read Files or Directories, Modify Files or Directories, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data, Hide Activities
Attackers could execute unauthorized operating system commands, which could then be used to disable the product, or read and modify data for which the attacker does not have permissions to access directly. Since the targeted application is directly executing the commands instead of the attacker, any…
Mitigations (5)
Architecture and DesignIf at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design, OperationRun 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 ex…
Effectiveness: Limited
Architecture and DesignFor 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.
Architecture and DesignFor 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.
Architecture and DesignUse 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.
Examples (2)
This example code intends to take the name of a user and list the contents of that user's home directory. It is subject to the first variant of OS command injection.
$userName = $_POST["user"]; $command = 'ls -l /home/' . $userName; system($command);
Bad · PHP
;rm -rf /
Attack
The following simple program accepts a filename as a command line argument and displays the contents of the file back to the user. The program is installed setuid root because it is intended for use as a learning tool to allow system administrators in-training to inspect privileged system files without giving them the ability to modify them or damage the system.
int main(int argc, char** argv) { char cmd[CMD_MAX] = "/usr/bin/cat "; strcat(cmd, argv[1]); system(cmd); }
Bad · C
CVE IDTitleCVSSSeverityPublished
CVE-2024-8934 Beckhoff: Local command injection via TwinCAT Package Manager — TwinCAT Package Manager 6.5 Medium2024-10-31
CVE-2024-41153 Hitachi Energy TRO600 安全漏洞 — TRO600 7.2 High2024-10-29
CVE-2024-47821 pyLoad vulnerable to remote code execution by download to /.pyload/scripts using /flashgot API — pyload 9.1 Critical2024-10-25
CVE-2024-48963 Snyk CLI 安全漏洞 — Snyk Cli 7.5 High2024-10-23
CVE-2024-48964 Snyk CLI 安全漏洞 — Snyk Cli 7.5 High2024-10-23
CVE-2024-20424 Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center 安全漏洞 — Cisco Firepower Management Center 9.9 Critical2024-10-23
CVE-2024-20275 Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Software Backup Cluster Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Firepower Management Center 6.8 Medium2024-10-23
CVE-2024-47901 Siemens InterMesh 7177和Siemens InterMesh 7707 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — InterMesh 7177 Hybrid 2.0 Subscriber 10.0 Critical2024-10-23
CVE-2024-10202 Wellchoose Administrative Management System - OS Command Injection — Administrative Management System 8.8 High2024-10-21
CVE-2024-10119 SECOM WRTM326 - OS Command Injection — WRTM326 9.8 Critical2024-10-18
CVE-2024-10118 SECOM WRTR-304GN-304TW-UPSC - OS Command Injection — WRTR-304GN-304TW-UPSC 9.8 Critical2024-10-18
CVE-2024-49281 WordPress Click to Chat – WP Support All-in-One Floating Widget plugin <= 2.3.3 - Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability — Click to Chat – WP Support All-in-One Floating Widget 6.5 Medium2024-10-17
CVE-2005-10003 mikexstudios Xcomic os command injection — Xcomic 5.6 Medium2024-10-17
CVE-2024-6333 Authenticated Remote Code Execution in Altalink, Versalink & WorkCentre Products — AltaLink® B8045 / B8055 / B8065 / B8075 / B8090 | C8030 / C8035 / C8045 / C8055 / C807 7.2 High2024-10-17
CVE-2024-20461 Cisco ATA 190 Series Analog Telephone Adapter Firmware Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Analog Telephone Adaptor (ATA) Software 6.0 Medium2024-10-16
CVE-2024-20459 Cisco ATA 190 Series Analog Telephone Adapter Muliplatform Firmware Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Analog Telephone Adaptor (ATA) Software 6.5 Medium2024-10-16
CVE-2024-20458 Cisco ATA 190 Series Analog Telephone Adapter Software Vulnerabilities — Cisco Analog Telephone Adaptor (ATA) Software 8.2 High2024-10-16
CVE-2024-22033 obs-service-download_url is vulnerable to argument injection — SUSE Package Hub 15 SP5 6.3 Medium2024-10-16
CVE-2024-9977 MitraStar GPT-2541GNAC Firewall Settings Page settings-firewall.cgi os command injection — GPT-2541GNAC 4.7 Medium2024-10-15
CVE-2024-9139 OS Command Injection in Restricted Command — EDR-8010 Series 7.2 High2024-10-14
CVE-2024-9916 HuangDou UTCMS cli.php os command injection — UTCMS 7.3 High2024-10-13
CVE-2024-9464 Expedition: Authenticated OS Command Injection Vulnerability Leads to Firewall Admin Credential Disclosure — Expedition 9.9AICriticalAI2024-10-09
CVE-2024-9463 Expedition: Unauthenticated OS Command Injection Vulnerability Leads to Firewall Credential Disclosure — Expedition 10.0AICriticalAI2024-10-09
CVE-2024-45720 Apache Subversion: Command line argument injection on Windows platforms — Apache Subversion 8.2 High2024-10-09
CVE-2024-21532 ggit 安全漏洞 — ggit 7.3 High2024-10-08
CVE-2024-8926 PHP CGI Parameter Injection Vulnerability (CVE-2024-4577 bypass) — PHP 8.1 High2024-10-08
CVE-2024-45252 Elsight – CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') — Halo version 11.7.1.5 9.8 Critical2024-10-06
CVE-2024-45251 Elsight – CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') — Halo version 11.7.1.5 9.8 Critical2024-10-06
CVE-2024-9054 Remote code Execution inTimeProvider® 4100 — TimeProvider 4100 8.8 -2024-10-04
CVE-2024-9441 Linear eMerge e3-Series Forgot Password Command Injection — eMerge e3-Series 9.8 Critical2024-10-02

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-78 (OS命令中使用的特殊元素转义处理不恰当(OS命令注入)) represent 2933 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.