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

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1359 CNY

100%

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 4022

4022 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-Repudiation Execute 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 Design If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design, Operation 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 ex…
Effectiveness: Limited
Architecture and Design 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.
Architecture and Design 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.
Architecture and Design 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.
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 ID Title CVSS Severity Published
CVE-2022-43643 D-Link DIR-825 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — DIR-825 8.8 - 2023-03-29
CVE-2022-43644 D-Link DIR-825 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — DIR-825 8.8 - 2023-03-29
CVE-2022-43645 D-Link DIR-825 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — DIR-825 8.8 - 2023-03-29
CVE-2022-43646 D-Link DIR-825 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — DIR-825 8.8 - 2023-03-29
CVE-2022-43647 D-Link DIR-825 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — DIR-825 8.8 - 2023-03-29
CVE-2023-28102 Command injection in discordrb — discordrb 8.4 High 2023-03-27
CVE-2023-28627 OS Command Injection via GIT_PATH in pymedusa — Medusa 8.3 High 2023-03-27
CVE-2023-24837 HGiga PowerStation - Command Injection — PowerStation 8.8 High 2023-03-27
CVE-2023-24841 HGiga MailSherlock - Command Injection — MailSherlock 7.2 High 2023-03-27
CVE-2023-20056 Cisco Access Point Software Denial of Service Vulnerability — Cisco Aironet Access Point Software 6.5 Medium 2023-03-23
CVE-2023-20082 Cisco IOS XE Software for Cisco Catalyst 9300 Series Switches Secure Boot Bypass Vulnerability — Cisco IOS XE ROMMON Software 6.1 Medium 2023-03-23
CVE-2022-37337 NETGEAR RBR750 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Orbi Router RBR750 9.1 Critical 2023-03-21
CVE-2023-25617 OS Command Execution vulnerability in SAP Business Objects Business Intelligence Platform (Adaptive Job Server) — Business Objects (Adaptive Job Server) 9.0 Critical 2023-03-14
CVE-2023-1350 liferea Feed Enrichment update.c update_job_run os command injection — liferea 6.3 Medium 2023-03-11
CVE-2022-39951 Fortinet FortiWeb 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — FortiWeb 7.2 High 2023-03-07
CVE-2023-26490 mailcow is vulnerable to shell command injection via xoauth2 authentication in imapsync​ — mailcow-dockerized 7.3 High 2023-03-03
CVE-2023-26039 ZoneMinder vulnerable to OS Command injection in daemonControl() API — zoneminder 7.1 High 2023-02-25
CVE-2022-2024 OS Command Injection in gogs/gogs — gogs/gogs 9.8 - 2023-02-25
CVE-2023-20015 Cisco Firepower 4100 Series, Firepower 9300 Security Appliances, and UCS Fabric Interconnects Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Unified Computing System (Managed) 6.0 Medium 2023-02-23
CVE-2023-20050 Cisco NX-OS Software CLI Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco NX-OS Software 4.4 Medium 2023-02-23
CVE-2023-0935 DolphinPHP Incomplete Fix CVE-2021-46097 common.php os command injection — DolphinPHP 6.3 Medium 2023-02-21
CVE-2022-33869 Fortinet FortiWAN 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — FortiWAN 8.0 High 2023-02-16
CVE-2022-27482 Fortinet FortiADC 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — FortiADC 7.4 High 2023-02-16
CVE-2022-27489 Fortinet FortiExtender 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — FortiExtender 7.0 High 2023-02-16
CVE-2023-23779 Fortinet FortiWeb 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — FortiWeb 6.6 Medium 2023-02-16
CVE-2022-30303 Fortinet FortiWeb 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — FortiWeb 8.6 High 2023-02-16
CVE-2023-0830 EasyNAS backup.pl system os command injection — EasyNAS 6.3 Medium 2023-02-14
CVE-2022-34447 Dell PowerPath Management Appliance 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — PowerPath Management Appliance 7.2 High 2023-02-10
CVE-2022-46649 Sierra Wireless ALEOS 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — ALEOS 8.8 - 2023-02-10
CVE-2022-43550 Jitsi 命令注入漏洞 — https://github.com/jitsi 8.1 - 2023-02-09

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 4022 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.