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 4005

4005 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-2026-102079 Junos OS: MX Series: Missing Authorization for specific 'request' CLI commands allows command injection — Junos OS 7.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-101967 Junos OS Evolved: PTX Series: An attacker controlled DHCP response causes root-level compromise when zero-touch provisioning is used — Junos OS Evolved 8.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-101978 Junos OS Evolved: PTX Series: An attacker controlled gRPC response causes root-level compromise when zero-touch provisioning is used — Junos OS Evolved 8.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-103929 mise permits untrusted local configuration to override default shell arguments — mise 7.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110650 Thumbnail through 1.5 OS Command Injection via generate_thumbnail File Paths — thumbnail 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110649 Stills before 25.24.2 OS Command Injection via Media File Names — stills 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110647 Turnpress through 0.4.2 OS Command Injection via Crafted .docx File Names — turnpress 7.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110648 @offactory/compress-fonts before 1.1.1 OS Command Injection via Font File Names — compress-fonts 7.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110646 Beganovich snappdf 1.1.0 before 6.1.0 OS Command Injection on Windows via setUrl() — snappdf 8.1 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110644 nodejs-whisper through 0.3.1 OS Command Injection via convertToWavType — nodejs-whisper 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110645 Video-stitch before 2.0.0-beta.1 OS Command Injection via concat() and cut() — video-stitch 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110642 xhtml2pdf before 0.2.19 OS Command Injection via startViewer File Name — xhtml2pdf 7.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110643 transcribe2texts through 1.0.6 OS Command Injection via transcribeAudio audioPath — transcribe2texts 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110641 @runnerty/executor-decompress through 3.1.1 OS Command Injection via Archive File Name — @runnerty/executor-decompress 8.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110639 @mborne/extract before 0.2.1 OS Command Injection via archivePath and targetDir — @mborne/extract 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110640 Whisper-node through 1.1.1 OS Command Injection via filePath and language — whisper-node 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110638 doc-recog through 1.1.6 OS Command Injection via DocData._readPDF File Path — doc-recog 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110637 buildebooks before 0.2.2 OS Command Injection via kindlegen EPUB File Name — buildebooks 7.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110635 webp-converter before 3.0.0 OS Command Injection via File Names and Options — webp-converter 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110636 pypdftk through 0.5 OS Command Injection via PDF and Output Paths — pypdftk 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110634 git-diff before 2.0.7 OS Command Injection via gitDiff Input Strings — git-diff 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2020-37282 office-converter through 1.0.2 OS Command Injection via fileName in generatePdf — office-converter 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-101215 Dell Unisphere PowerMax 9.2.4.x OS命令注入漏洞 — Unisphere for PowerMax vApp 6.6 Medium 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-16741 OS Command in TR7 Cyber ​​Defense's TR7 ASP — TR7 ASP 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-73792 HPE NonStop Java JToolkit - Command Injection and buffer overflow vulnerability — HPE NonStop Java JToolkit 3.8 Low 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-105106 Koha authenticated OS command injection in tools/scheduler.pl via the jobid parameter when deleting a scheduled task — Koha 8.8 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-106931 SiteGuard Server OS命令注入漏洞 — SiteGuard Server Edition for Apache httpd 8.5 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-105429 NetBird client SSH config Match line injection via peer FQDN or hostname allows local command execution — NetBird 8.0 High 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110447 Collabora Online <26.4.303 OS命令注入漏洞 — Collabora Online - Built-in CODE Server 9.2 Critical 2026-10-14
CVE-2026-110392 Samsung QA-Board — Unauthenticated OS command injection via output redo/tuning — QA-Board 9.8 Critical 2026-10-14

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 4005 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.