CWE-78
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
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.
8690 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-737X-8XQC-H3GH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 21:32 – Updated: 2026-07-21 21:32The audit file upload handler does not sanitize filenames, allowing shell metacharacters to flow into system command execution. This input validation failure enables command injection when chained with a related vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-64881"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-21T21:16:53Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The audit file upload handler does not sanitize filenames, allowing shell metacharacters to flow into system command execution. This input validation failure enables command injection when chained with a related vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-737x-8xqc-h3gh",
"modified": "2026-07-21T21:32:43Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T21:32:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/tns-2026-19"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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-73C7-5G37-CMQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:11 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:31On Reolink RLC-410W, C1 Pro, C2 Pro, RLC-422W, and RLC-511W devices through 1.0.227, an authenticated admin can use the "TestEmail" functionality to inject and run OS commands as root, as demonstrated by shell metacharacters in the addr1 field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-11001"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-08T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "On Reolink RLC-410W, C1 Pro, C2 Pro, RLC-422W, and RLC-511W devices through 1.0.227, an authenticated admin can use the \"TestEmail\" functionality to inject and run OS commands as root, as demonstrated by shell metacharacters in the addr1 field.",
"id": "GHSA-73c7-5g37-cmq7",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:31:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:11:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mcw0/PoC/blob/master/Reolink-IPC-RCE.py"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2019-11001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vdoo.com/blog/working-with-the-community-%E2%80%93-significant-vulnerabilities-in-reolink-cameras"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-73CQ-3GXP-9292
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:38 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:38This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of Foxit Reader 8.3.0.14878. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the gotoURL method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code under the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-5030.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-10953"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-31T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of Foxit Reader 8.3.0.14878. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the gotoURL method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code under the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-5030.",
"id": "GHSA-73cq-3gxp-9292",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:38:18Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:38:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-10953"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.foxitsoftware.com/support/security-bulletins.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-17-718"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/100682"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-73H9-784V-5F52
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:17 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:17A vulnerability in the CLI parser of Cisco Network Services Orchestrator (NSO) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the root user. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious arguments into vulnerable commands. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the affected system. This vulnerability affects the following releases of Cisco Network Services Orchestrator (NSO): 4.1 through 4.1.6.0, 4.2 through 4.2.4.0, 4.3 through 4.3.3.0, 4.4 through 4.4.2.0. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf99982.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-0274"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-06-07T12:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the CLI parser of Cisco Network Services Orchestrator (NSO) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the root user. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious arguments into vulnerable commands. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the affected system. This vulnerability affects the following releases of Cisco Network Services Orchestrator (NSO): 4.1 through 4.1.6.0, 4.2 through 4.2.4.0, 4.3 through 4.3.3.0, 4.4 through 4.4.2.0. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf99982.",
"id": "GHSA-73h9-784v-5f52",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:17:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:17:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-0274"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20180606-nso"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/104449"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-73HP-3M9V-H54H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-24 03:31 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:33Brocade Fabric OS versions starting with 9.1.0 have root access removed, however, a local user with admin privilege can potentially execute arbitrary code with full root privileges on Fabric OS versions 9.1.0 through 9.1.1d6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-1976"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-24T03:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Brocade Fabric OS versions starting with 9.1.0 have root access removed, however, a local user with admin privilege can potentially execute arbitrary code with full root privileges on Fabric OS versions 9.1.0 through 9.1.1d6.",
"id": "GHSA-73hp-3m9v-h54h",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:33:17Z",
"published": "2025-04-24T03:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-1976"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/25602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2025-1976"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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-73JM-6X85-HWG5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:14 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:31A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with administrative privileges on an affected device to execute arbitrary commands. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious HTTP POST requests to the web-based management interface of an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux shell as root. Cisco has released firmware updates that address this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1652"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-24T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with administrative privileges on an affected device to execute arbitrary commands. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious HTTP POST requests to the web-based management interface of an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux shell as root. Cisco has released firmware updates that address this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-73jm-6x85-hwg5",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:31:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:14:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Mar/55"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190123-rv-inject"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2019-1652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46243"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46655"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/152262/Cisco-RV320-Command-Injection.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/152305/Cisco-RV320-RV325-Unauthenticated-Remote-Code-Execution.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Mar/61"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106728"
}
],
"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-73WF-9VMV-5PV9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-17 17:20 – Updated: 2026-08-17 17:20Summary
CVE-2026-32608 ("Command Injection via Process Names in Action Command Templates") was fixed (commit 5680a5d) by adding _sanitize_mustache_dict, which replaces the shell operators &&, |, >>, > with spaces in the values rendered into action command templates.
The sanitizer only processes top-level string values (if isinstance(v, str)). Attacker-controlled nested values — most notably a process's cmdline, which Glances exposes as a list and which is fully attacker-controlled via argv — are passed through unsanitized. Because the Mustache renderer (chevron) does not HTML-escape the pipe character |, a | embedded in such a nested value survives into the rendered command and is then interpreted by secure_popen (which still interprets &&/|/> by default, allow_operators=True), re-introducing the exact command injection the CVE was meant to close.
Details
The fix (glances/actions.py):
_SHELL_OPERATORS = ('&&', '|', '>>', '>') # line 25
def _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict): # line 28
...
for k, v in mustache_dict.items():
if isinstance(v, str): # line 40 <-- ONLY top-level strings
for op in _SHELL_OPERATORS:
v = v.replace(op, ' ')
safe[k] = v
else:
safe[k] = v # nested list/dict passed VERBATIM
return safe
Render + sink (glances/actions.py:104-111):
safe_dict = _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict)
cmd_full = chevron.render(cmd, safe_dict) # chevron does NOT escape '|'
...
ret = secure_popen(cmd_full) # secure_popen(cmd, allow_operators=True)
secure_popen (glances/secure.py:17, default allow_operators=True) splits the command by &&, then __secure_popen interprets | (pipe to a new process) and > (write output to a file). A surviving | therefore launches an attacker-named second process.
The attacker-controlled nested value — cmdline. The action mustache_dict is the per-item plugin stat (glances/plugins/plugin/model.py:931 mustache_dict = item, then :943 self.actions.run(..., mustache_dict=mustache_dict)). For the processlist plugin, each item contains cmdline, a list of the process arguments, set by the attacker simply by launching a process with chosen argv. The sanitizer's isinstance(v, str) test skips the list, so its elements reach chevron.render unmodified.
Why the operator survives render. chevron/Mustache HTML-escapes & < > " ' for {{var}} (so > and && are neutralized) but does not escape |. A pipe in the (unsanitized) nested value therefore reaches secure_popen intact and is interpreted.
Parent-fix attribution (verified against the real diff of commit 5680a5d / CVE-2026-32608): that fix added exactly _SHELL_OPERATORS, _sanitize_mustache_dict, and the _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict) call — and the sanitizer's docstring explicitly claims to neutralize "user-controllable data (process names, container names, mount points, etc.)". It does so only for top-level strings; the list/dict case (else: safe[k] = v) was left unsanitized. This is therefore a genuine incomplete-fix gap, not a re-report of the patched (top-level string) vector.
Proof of Concept
Lab-only, harmless (touches a marker file; non-destructive). Runs the real glances chain (_sanitize_mustache_dict → chevron.render → secure_popen) — see poc/glances_nested_mustache_poc.py.
Attacker process argv (the only attacker input): cmdline = ['x', '|touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker', '#'].
Admin action template (renders the offending process's cmdline): echo ALERT {{#cmdline}}{{.}} {{/cmdline}}.
Observed (confirmed on develop HEAD 92156d0/4.5.6 and verified code-identical on v4.5.5):
cmdline after sanitizer : ['x', '|touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker', '#'] <- pipe survives
cmd_full -> secure_popen : 'echo ALERT x |touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker # '
[VULNERABLE] marker created -> /tmp/glances_poc_marker (command injection executed)
Replacing touch /tmp/... with any command yields arbitrary execution in the Glances process context.
Preconditions (stated honestly)
- A configured alert action whose command template renders a nested stat field (e.g. the process
cmdlinevia a{{#cmdline}}…{{/cmdline}}section). Templates that render only flat string fields ({{name}},{{value}},{{username}},{{mnt_point}}) are not affected — those values are sanitized. - Glances running with privilege to enumerate the attacker's process (typically root in server/agent monitoring deployments) → privilege boundary crossed (
S:C).
Impact
A local unprivileged user gains OS command execution in the Glances security context (commonly root) — the same impact and threat model as the parent CVE-2026-32608, re-enabled for any action template that renders a nested stat field. The injection is reliable once the (admin-set) template references such a field.
Suggested fix
- Sanitize recursively — apply the operator stripping to strings inside lists and dicts, not only top-level
strvalues. - And/or build the templated action as an argument list and run it via
secure_popen(..., allow_operators=False)/shell=Falsewithout operator interpretation. - And/or also strip the pipe
|(and treat all_SHELL_OPERATORS) on every rendered string regardless of nesting; do not rely on Mustache HTML-escaping (it does not escape|).
Credit
Ta Duc Thien
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "glances"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.5.2"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-62982"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-17T17:20:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\nCVE-2026-32608 (\"Command Injection via Process Names in Action Command Templates\") was fixed (commit `5680a5d`) by adding `_sanitize_mustache_dict`, which replaces the shell operators `\u0026\u0026`, `|`, `\u003e\u003e`, `\u003e` with spaces in the values rendered into action command templates.\n\nThe sanitizer only processes **top-level string** values (`if isinstance(v, str)`). Attacker-controlled **nested** values \u2014 most notably a process\u0027s **`cmdline`, which Glances exposes as a `list`** and which is fully attacker-controlled via argv \u2014 are passed through **unsanitized**. Because the Mustache renderer (`chevron`) does **not** HTML-escape the pipe character `|`, a `|` embedded in such a nested value survives into the rendered command and is then interpreted by `secure_popen` (which still interprets `\u0026\u0026`/`|`/`\u003e` by default, `allow_operators=True`), re-introducing the exact command injection the CVE was meant to close.\n\n## Details\nThe fix (`glances/actions.py`):\n```python\n_SHELL_OPERATORS = (\u0027\u0026\u0026\u0027, \u0027|\u0027, \u0027\u003e\u003e\u0027, \u0027\u003e\u0027) # line 25\n\ndef _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict): # line 28\n ...\n for k, v in mustache_dict.items():\n if isinstance(v, str): # line 40 \u003c-- ONLY top-level strings\n for op in _SHELL_OPERATORS:\n v = v.replace(op, \u0027 \u0027)\n safe[k] = v\n else:\n safe[k] = v # nested list/dict passed VERBATIM\n return safe\n```\nRender + sink (`glances/actions.py:104-111`):\n```python\nsafe_dict = _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict)\ncmd_full = chevron.render(cmd, safe_dict) # chevron does NOT escape \u0027|\u0027\n...\nret = secure_popen(cmd_full) # secure_popen(cmd, allow_operators=True)\n```\n`secure_popen` (`glances/secure.py:17`, default `allow_operators=True`) splits the command by `\u0026\u0026`, then `__secure_popen` interprets `|` (pipe to a new process) and `\u003e` (write output to a file). A surviving `|` therefore launches an attacker-named second process.\n\n**The attacker-controlled nested value \u2014 `cmdline`.** The action `mustache_dict` is the per-item plugin stat (`glances/plugins/plugin/model.py:931` `mustache_dict = item`, then `:943` `self.actions.run(..., mustache_dict=mustache_dict)`). For the processlist plugin, each `item` contains `cmdline`, a **list** of the process arguments, set by the attacker simply by launching a process with chosen argv. The sanitizer\u0027s `isinstance(v, str)` test skips the list, so its elements reach `chevron.render` unmodified.\n\n**Why the operator survives render.** `chevron`/Mustache HTML-escapes `\u0026 \u003c \u003e \" \u0027` for `{{var}}` (so `\u003e` and `\u0026\u0026` are neutralized) but **does not escape `|`**. A pipe in the (unsanitized) nested value therefore reaches `secure_popen` intact and is interpreted.\n\n**Parent-fix attribution (verified against the real diff of commit `5680a5d` / CVE-2026-32608):** that fix added exactly `_SHELL_OPERATORS`, `_sanitize_mustache_dict`, and the `_sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict)` call \u2014 and the sanitizer\u0027s docstring explicitly claims to neutralize \"user-controllable data (process names, container names, mount points, etc.)\". It does so only for top-level strings; the list/dict case (`else: safe[k] = v`) was left unsanitized. This is therefore a genuine incomplete-fix gap, not a re-report of the patched (top-level string) vector.\n\n## Proof of Concept\nLab-only, harmless (touches a marker file; non-destructive). Runs the real `glances` chain (`_sanitize_mustache_dict` \u2192 `chevron.render` \u2192 `secure_popen`) \u2014 see `poc/glances_nested_mustache_poc.py`.\n\nAttacker process argv (the only attacker input): `cmdline = [\u0027x\u0027, \u0027|touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker\u0027, \u0027#\u0027]`.\nAdmin action template (renders the offending process\u0027s cmdline): `echo ALERT {{#cmdline}}{{.}} {{/cmdline}}`.\n\nObserved (confirmed on develop HEAD `92156d0`/4.5.6 and verified code-identical on v4.5.5):\n```\ncmdline after sanitizer : [\u0027x\u0027, \u0027|touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker\u0027, \u0027#\u0027] \u003c- pipe survives\ncmd_full -\u003e secure_popen : \u0027echo ALERT x |touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker # \u0027\n[VULNERABLE] marker created -\u003e /tmp/glances_poc_marker (command injection executed)\n```\nReplacing `touch /tmp/...` with any command yields arbitrary execution in the Glances process context.\n\n## Preconditions (stated honestly)\n- A configured alert **action** whose command template **renders a nested stat field** (e.g. the process `cmdline` via a `{{#cmdline}}\u2026{{/cmdline}}` section). Templates that render only **flat string** fields (`{{name}}`, `{{value}}`, `{{username}}`, `{{mnt_point}}`) are **not** affected \u2014 those values *are* sanitized.\n- Glances running with privilege to enumerate the attacker\u0027s process (typically **root** in server/agent monitoring deployments) \u2192 privilege boundary crossed (`S:C`).\n\n## Impact\nA local unprivileged user gains OS command execution in the Glances security context (commonly root) \u2014 the same impact and threat model as the parent CVE-2026-32608, re-enabled for any action template that renders a nested stat field. The injection is reliable once the (admin-set) template references such a field.\n\n## Suggested fix\n- Sanitize **recursively** \u2014 apply the operator stripping to strings inside lists and dicts, not only top-level `str` values.\n- And/or build the templated action as an argument list and run it via `secure_popen(..., allow_operators=False)` / `shell=False` without operator interpretation.\n- And/or also strip the pipe `|` (and treat all `_SHELL_OPERATORS`) on every rendered string regardless of nesting; do not rely on Mustache HTML-escaping (it does not escape `|`).\n\n## Credit\nTa Duc Thien",
"id": "GHSA-73wf-9vmv-5pv9",
"modified": "2026-08-17T17:20:24Z",
"published": "2026-08-17T17:20:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolargo/glances/security/advisories/GHSA-73wf-9vmv-5pv9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolargo/glances/commit/ea4cf2f54f0d961e24aa0b24fff9584bab39db93"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolargo/glances"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolargo/glances/releases/tag/v4.5.6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Glances: Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-32608: action-template sanitizer is bypassed by nested stat values (process \u0027cmdline\u0027) \u2192 OS command injection"
}
GHSA-742F-JWRQ-HGQC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:38 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:38A vulnerability in the Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) Manager, Cisco Firepower 4100 Series Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW), and Cisco Firepower 9300 Security Appliance could allow an authenticated, local attacker to obtain root shell privileges on the device, aka Command Injection. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of string input in the shell application. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability through the use of malicious commands. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to obtain root shell privileges on the device. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf20741, CSCvf60078.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-12243"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-11-02T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) Manager, Cisco Firepower 4100 Series Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW), and Cisco Firepower 9300 Security Appliance could allow an authenticated, local attacker to obtain root shell privileges on the device, aka Command Injection. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of string input in the shell application. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability through the use of malicious commands. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to obtain root shell privileges on the device. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf20741, CSCvf60078.",
"id": "GHSA-742f-jwrq-hgqc",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:38:03Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:38:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-12243"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20171101-arce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/101652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039719"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-742J-RFQH-7886
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:22 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:22Remote command injection vulnerability in Verizon Fios Quantum Gateway (G1100) firmware version 02.01.00.05 allows a remote, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the target device by adding an access control rule for a network object with a crafted hostname.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-3914"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-11T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Remote command injection vulnerability in Verizon Fios Quantum Gateway (G1100) firmware version 02.01.00.05 allows a remote, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the target device by adding an access control rule for a network object with a crafted hostname.",
"id": "GHSA-742j-rfqh-7886",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:22:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:22:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-3914"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2019-17"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7437-7HG8-FRRW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-09 14:22 – Updated: 2026-04-28 18:29Impact
HGRCPATH, CARGO_BUILD_RUSTC_WRAPPER, RUSTC_WRAPPER, and MAKEFLAGS missing from exec env denylist — RCE via build tool env injection (GHSA-cm8v-2vh9-cxf3 class).
Missing denylist entries allowed hostile build-tool environment variables to influence host exec commands.
OpenClaw is a user-controlled local assistant. This advisory is scoped to the OpenClaw trust model and does not assume a multi-tenant service boundary.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Affected versions:
< 2026.4.8 - Patched versions:
2026.4.8
Fix
The issue was fixed on main and is available in the patched npm version listed above. The verified fixed tree is commit d7c3210cd6f5fdfdc1beff4c9541673e814354d5.
Verification
The fix was re-checked against main before publication, including targeted regression tests for the affected security boundary.
Credits
Thanks @boy-hack of Tencent zhuque Lab (https://github.com/Tencent/AI-Infra-Guard) for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.4.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42427"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-184",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-09T14:22:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Impact\n\nHGRCPATH, CARGO_BUILD_RUSTC_WRAPPER, RUSTC_WRAPPER, and MAKEFLAGS missing from exec env denylist \u2014 RCE via build tool env injection (GHSA-cm8v-2vh9-cxf3 class).\n\nMissing denylist entries allowed hostile build-tool environment variables to influence host exec commands.\n\nOpenClaw is a user-controlled local assistant. This advisory is scoped to the OpenClaw trust model and does not assume a multi-tenant service boundary.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected versions: `\u003c 2026.4.8`\n- Patched versions: `2026.4.8`\n\n## Fix\n\nThe issue was fixed on `main` and is available in the patched npm version listed above. The verified fixed tree is commit `d7c3210cd6f5fdfdc1beff4c9541673e814354d5`.\n\n## Verification\n\nThe fix was re-checked against `main` before publication, including targeted regression tests for the affected security boundary.\n\n## Credits\nThanks @boy-hack of Tencent zhuque Lab (https://github.com/Tencent/AI-Infra-Guard) for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-7437-7hg8-frrw",
"modified": "2026-04-28T18:29:08Z",
"published": "2026-04-09T14:22:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-7437-7hg8-frrw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/d7c3210cd6f5fdfdc1beff4c9541673e814354d5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: HGRCPATH, CARGO_BUILD_RUSTC_WRAPPER, RUSTC_WRAPPER, and MAKEFLAGS missing from exec env denylist \u2014 RCE via build tool env injection (GHSA-cm8v-2vh9-cxf3 class)"
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- 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 example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
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.
Mitigation MIT-15
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.
Mitigation MIT-4.3
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- 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.
Mitigation MIT-28
Strategy: Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
Mitigation
If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
- If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
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.
- When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Mitigation
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
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-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-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.