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 4006

4006 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-2020-3336	Cisco TelePresence Collaboration Endpoint and RoomOS Software Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco TelePresence CE Software	7.2	-	2020-06-18
CVE-2020-2029	PAN-OS: OS command injection vulnerability in management interface certificate generator — PAN-OS	7.2	High	2020-06-10
CVE-2020-2028	PAN-OS: OS command injection vulnerability in FIPS-CC mode certificate verification — PAN-OS	7.2	High	2020-06-10
CVE-2020-2014	PAN-OS: OS injection vulnerability in PAN-OS management server — PAN-OS	8.8	High	2020-05-13
CVE-2020-2007	PAN-OS: OS command injection in management server — PAN-OS	7.2	High	2020-05-13
CVE-2020-2010	PAN-OS: Authenticated user command injection vulnerability — PAN-OS	7.2	High	2020-05-13
CVE-2020-7805	KT Slim egg IML500和IML520 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — KT Slim egg IML500	9.8	-	2020-05-07
CVE-2020-5332	Dell EMC RSA Archer 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — RSA Archer	7.2	High	2020-05-04
CVE-2020-7351	Fonality Trixbox CE Post-Authentication Command Injection — Trixbox Community Edition	7.3	High	2020-05-01
CVE-2020-11016	Remote code execution in Message sending functionality in IntelMQ Manager — IntelMQ Manager	9.1	Critical	2020-04-30
CVE-2020-7804	HANDYSOFT Handy Groupware 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — HandySoft Groupware(HShell.dll) for for Windows 7, 8, 10	6.4	Medium	2020-04-29
CVE-2020-7350	Metasploit Framework Plugin Libnotify Command Injection — Metasploit Framework	6.1	Medium	2020-04-22
CVE-2020-5350	Dell EMC Integrated Data Protection Appliance 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Integrated Data Protection Appliance	7.9	High	2020-04-15
CVE-2020-10603	Advantech WebAccess/NMS 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — WebAccess/NMS	9.8	-	2020-04-09
CVE-2020-10886	TP-Link Archer A7 AC1750 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Archer A7	9.8	-	2020-03-25
CVE-2020-10882	TP-Link Archer A7 AC1750 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Archer A7	8.8	-	2020-03-25
CVE-2020-5282	arbitrary shell execution in Nick Chan Bot — nickchanbot	7.2	High	2020-03-25
CVE-2020-9054	ZyXEL NAS products running firmware version 5.21 and earlier are vulnerable to pre-authentication command injection in weblogin.cgi — NAS326	9.8	-	2020-03-04
CVE-2020-1734	Ansible pipe lookup插件操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Ansible	7.4	High	2020-03-03
CVE-2020-3167	Cisco FXOS and UCS Manager Software CLI Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software	7.8	-	2020-02-26
CVE-2020-3169	Cisco FXOS Software CLI Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Firepower Extensible Operating System (FXOS)	6.7	-	2020-02-26
CVE-2020-3171	Cisco FXOS and UCS Manager Software Local Management CLI Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software	7.8	-	2020-02-26
CVE-2020-3173	Cisco UCS Manager Software Local Management CLI Command Injection Vulnerability — Cisco Unified Computing System (Managed)	7.8	-	2020-02-26
CVE-2019-5138	Moxa AWK-3131A 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Moxa	9.9	-	2020-02-25
CVE-2019-5142	Moxa AWK-3131A 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Moxa	7.2	-	2020-02-25
CVE-2019-5141	Moxa AWK-3131A 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Moxa	8.8	-	2020-02-25
CVE-2019-5140	Moxa AWK-3131A操作系统命令注入漏洞 — Moxa	8.8	-	2020-02-25
CVE-2020-8130	Ruby Rake 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — https://github.com/ruby/ruby	6.4	-	2020-02-24
CVE-2020-8858	Moxa MGate 5105-MB-EIP 操作系统命令注入漏洞 — MGate 5105-MB-EIP	8.8	-	2020-02-13
CVE-2019-17096	Bitdefender BOX 2 bootstrap get_image_size command injection vulnerability — Bitdefender BOX 2	9.0	Critical	2020-01-28

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 4006 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.