CWE-77
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
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.
5412 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-Q66H-M87M-J2Q6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-10 00:21 – Updated: 2026-02-10 00:21Summary: Remote Code Execution
Unsafe handling of request parameters in the RPC HTTP server results in command injection
Details
In lib/bitcoin/rpc/http_server.rb line 30-39, the JSON body of a POST request is parsed into command and args variables. These values are then passed to send, which is used to call an arbitrary class method. However, there is no validation that the provided command value is one of the expected RPC methods.
This means that an attacker could supply a command value such as system, and then pass arbitrary system commands into the args parameter and achieve remote code execution.
PoC
- Start the RPC server
- Send a request to the RPC server as so:
curl -X POST http://127.0.0.1:18443 -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ -d '{"method":"eval","params":["File.write(\"/tmp/pwned\",\"owned\")"]}' - Check the /tmp folder on the machine where the RPC server is being run. If a folder /pwned now exists, the vulnerability is confirmed.
Impact
This vulnerability would impact anyone running the RPC server. The impact is higher for those who are running it publicly exposed to the internet.
Remediation
Mitigating Factors:
- The RPC server is part of the experimental SPV node feature, which is not documented and has very few users.
- The SPV-related features may be removed in future releases.
Resolution:
- Added whitelist validation to allow only RPC methods defined in RequestHandler.
- Fixed in version 1.12.0.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "bitcoinrb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-10T00:21:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary: Remote Code Execution\nUnsafe handling of request parameters in the RPC HTTP server results in command injection\n\n### Details\nIn lib/bitcoin/rpc/http_server.rb line 30-39, the JSON body of a POST request is parsed into `command` and `args` variables. These values are then passed to `send`, which is used to call an arbitrary class method. However, there is no validation that the provided `command` value is one of the expected RPC methods. \nThis means that an attacker could supply a `command` value such as `system`, and then pass arbitrary system commands into the `args` parameter and achieve remote code execution. \n\n### PoC\n1. Start the RPC server\n2. Send a request to the RPC server as so:\n ```\ncurl -X POST http://127.0.0.1:18443 -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\"method\":\"eval\",\"params\":[\"File.write(\\\"/tmp/pwned\\\",\\\"owned\\\")\"]}\u0027\n```\n3. Check the /tmp folder on the machine where the RPC server is being run. If a folder /pwned now exists, the vulnerability is confirmed.\n### Impact\nThis vulnerability would impact anyone running the RPC server. The impact is higher for those who are running it publicly exposed to the internet.\n\n### Remediation \n \n **Mitigating Factors:** \n - The RPC server is part of the experimental SPV node feature, which is not documented and has very few users. \n - The SPV-related features may be removed in future releases. \n \n **Resolution:** \n - Added whitelist validation to allow only RPC methods defined in `RequestHandler`. \n - Fixed in version 1.12.0.",
"id": "GHSA-q66h-m87m-j2q6",
"modified": "2026-02-10T00:21:56Z",
"published": "2026-02-10T00:21:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chaintope/bitcoinrb/security/advisories/GHSA-q66h-m87m-j2q6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chaintope/bitcoinrb/commit/070327133a2a3e5a6d265b2d82f06f9414c01e74"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/chaintope/bitcoinrb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chaintope/bitcoinrb/releases/tag/v1.12.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Bitcoinrb Vulnerable to Command injection via RPC "
}
GHSA-Q66X-H4C5-7MF7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:45CONQUEST DICOM SERVER before 1.5.0 has a code execution vulnerability which can be exploited by attackers to execute malicious code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-35308"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-31T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "CONQUEST DICOM SERVER before 1.5.0 has a code execution vulnerability which can be exploited by attackers to execute malicious code.",
"id": "GHSA-q66x-h4c5-7mf7",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:45:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-35308"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cnvd.org.cn/flaw/show/2017713"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q686-QG49-F6HM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-29 20:06 – Updated: 2022-09-02 00:01TOTOLINK A810R V5.9c.4050_B20190424 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the component downloadFile.cgi.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-38511"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-29T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK A810R V5.9c.4050_B20190424 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the component downloadFile.cgi.",
"id": "GHSA-q686-qg49-f6hm",
"modified": "2022-09-02T00:01:09Z",
"published": "2022-08-29T20:06:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-38511"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/whiter6666/CVE/blob/main/TOTOLINK_A810R/downloadFile.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q68G-WG9J-V69V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-26 13:30 – Updated: 2026-05-26 13:30A security flaw has been discovered in Totolink A8000RU 7.1cu.643_b20200521. The affected element is the function setUpgradeFW of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Web Management Interface. Performing a manipulation of the argument resetFlags results in os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-9387"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-24T15:16:28Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A security flaw has been discovered in Totolink A8000RU 7.1cu.643_b20200521. The affected element is the function setUpgradeFW of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Web Management Interface. Performing a manipulation of the argument resetFlags results in os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-q68g-wg9j-v69v",
"modified": "2026-05-26T13:30:34Z",
"published": "2026-05-26T13:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-9387"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Litengzheng/vuldb_new2/blob/main/A8000RU/vul_334/README.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/813433"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/365350"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/365350/cti"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.totolink.net"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q6FM-VXC6-Q2WJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-13 21:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:27Zoho ManageEngine ADManager Plus through 7180 allows for authenticated users to exploit command injection via Proxy settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29084"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-13T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Zoho ManageEngine ADManager Plus through 7180 allows for authenticated users to exploit command injection via Proxy settings.",
"id": "GHSA-q6fm-vxc6-q2wj",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:27:22Z",
"published": "2023-04-13T21:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29084"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://manageengine.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.manageengine.com/products/ad-manager/admanager-kb/cve-2023-29084.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/172755/ManageEngine-ADManager-Plus-Command-Injection.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q6FX-83Q6-4WCJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-18 21:31 – Updated: 2025-08-18 21:31TOTOLINK A3002R v4.0.0-B20230531.1404 was discovered to contain an command injection vulnerability via the component bupload.html.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-55590"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-18T20:15:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK A3002R v4.0.0-B20230531.1404 was discovered to contain an command injection vulnerability via the component bupload.html.",
"id": "GHSA-q6fx-83q6-4wcj",
"modified": "2025-08-18T21:31:21Z",
"published": "2025-08-18T21:31:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-55590"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/goldenGlow21/softwares_PoC/blob/main/A3002R_V4/Boa%20-%20Command%20Injection/PoC%203.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q6G5-8V53-VCHJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:00 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:37The 7520V3V1.0.0B09P27 version, and all earlier versions of ZTE product ZX297520V3 are impacted by a Command Injection vulnerability. Unauthorized users can exploit this vulnerability to control the user terminal system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-3421"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-31T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The 7520V3V1.0.0B09P27 version, and all earlier versions of ZTE product ZX297520V3 are impacted by a Command Injection vulnerability. Unauthorized users can exploit this vulnerability to control the user terminal system.",
"id": "GHSA-q6g5-8v53-vchj",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:37:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:00:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-3421"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://support.zte.com.cn/support/news/LoopholeInfoDetail.aspx?newsId=1011643"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q6P3-MRGW-429V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-31 15:30 – Updated: 2023-11-08 18:30In TOTOLINK A3300R V17.0.0cu.557_B20221024 when dealing with setLedCfg request, there is no verification for the enable parameter, which can lead to command injection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-46993"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-31T15:15:09Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In TOTOLINK A3300R V17.0.0cu.557_B20221024 when dealing with setLedCfg request, there is no verification for the enable parameter, which can lead to command injection.",
"id": "GHSA-q6p3-mrgw-429v",
"modified": "2023-11-08T18:30:30Z",
"published": "2023-10-31T15:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-46993"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/AuroraHaaash/vul_report/blob/main/TOTOLINK%20A3300R-Command%20Injection/readme.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q6P9-89H2-C9H9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-15 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-16 15:31Daylight Studio FuelCMS v1.5.2 was discovered to contain an authenticated remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability via the /controllers/Installer.php and the function add_git_submodule.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30461"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-15T16:16:36Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Daylight Studio FuelCMS v1.5.2 was discovered to contain an authenticated remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability via the /controllers/Installer.php and the function add_git_submodule.",
"id": "GHSA-q6p9-89h2-c9h9",
"modified": "2026-04-16T15:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-04-15T18:31:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30461"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/daylightstudio/FUEL-CMS/blob/master/fuel/modules/fuel/controllers/Installer.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pentest-tools.com/PTT-2025-028-Authenticated-RCE-via-Git-Submodules.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://daylight.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://fuelcms.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-Q6V5-58GV-CXGM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-22 18:32 – Updated: 2025-04-22 21:30Codemers KLIMS 1.6.DEV allows Python code injection. A user can provide Python code as an input value for a parameter or qualifier (such as for sorting), which will get executed on the server side.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-43948"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-22T18:16:01Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Codemers KLIMS 1.6.DEV allows Python code injection. A user can provide Python code as an input value for a parameter or qualifier (such as for sorting), which will get executed on the server side.",
"id": "GHSA-q6v5-58gv-cxgm",
"modified": "2025-04-22T21:30:44Z",
"published": "2025-04-22T18:32:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43948"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://de.linkedin.com/company/codemers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Henkel-CyberVM/CVEs/tree/main/CVE-2025-43948"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume 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 of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation
Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
Mitigation
Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CAPEC-136: LDAP Injection
An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-183: IMAP/SMTP Command Injection
An adversary exploits weaknesses in input validation on web-mail servers to execute commands on the IMAP/SMTP server. Web-mail servers often sit between the Internet and the IMAP or SMTP mail server. User requests are received by the web-mail servers which then query the back-end mail server for the requested information and return this response to the user. In an IMAP/SMTP command injection attack, mail-server commands are embedded in parts of the request sent to the web-mail server. If the web-mail server fails to adequately sanitize these requests, these commands are then sent to the back-end mail server when it is queried by the web-mail server, where the commands are then executed. This attack can be especially dangerous since administrators may assume that the back-end server is protected against direct Internet access and therefore may not secure it adequately against the execution of malicious commands.
CAPEC-248: Command Injection
An adversary looking to execute a command of their choosing, injects new items into an existing command thus modifying interpretation away from what was intended. Commands in this context are often standalone strings that are interpreted by a downstream component and cause specific responses. This type of attack is possible when untrusted values are used to build these command strings. Weaknesses in input validation or command construction can enable the attack and lead to successful exploitation.
CAPEC-40: Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices
This attack exploits terminal devices that allow themselves to be written to by other users. The attacker sends command strings to the target terminal device hoping that the target user will hit enter and thereby execute the malicious command with their privileges. The attacker can send the results (such as copying /etc/passwd) to a known directory and collect once the attack has succeeded.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-75: Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.