CWE-94
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
9232 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-MR95-65J8-9MXP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-24 19:50 – Updated: 2026-09-24 19:50Reporter: Cavan Loughran, Celvex Group Inc.
Summary
The fix for CVE-2026-46439 (3.12.2 / 4.0.3) removed the recursive re-render loop in trestle/core/commands/author/jinja.py render_template, but the custom include tags in trestle/core/jinja/tags.py (MDSectionInclude, MDCleanInclude) still re-parse the CONTENT of an included markdown file as a Jinja2 template via Parser(self.environment, ).parse() in a plain (non-sandboxed) jinja2.Environment. Because the trestle markdown writers (ssp_io.py SSPMarkdownWriter, docs_control_writer.py DocsControlWriter) write OSCAL prose / component-description fields verbatim (the {{ -> [[ neutralization is applied to parameter tables only), attacker-controlled OSCAL data that flows into an included markdown file is interpreted as template code and can achieve arbitrary code execution on the runner. This is the same trust boundary and impact as CVE-2026-46439 via a sink the fix did not cover.
Affected versions
4.0.3 and earlier on this code path (the include tags predate and were untouched by the parent fix); the 3.12.x line likewise. Verified present in the fixed release 4.0.3 by direct source read.
Technical detail
Sink (UNCHANGED by the parent fix), trestle/core/jinja/tags.py:
MDSectionInclude.parse (the {% mdsection_include 'file.md' '# Section' %} tag), approximately: md_content, _, _ = self.environment.loader.get_source(self.environment, markdown_source.value) # ~line 90 ... local_parser = Parser(self.environment, md_section.content.raw_text) # ~line 104 <-- RE-PARSE top_level_output = local_parser.parse() # ~line 105 return top_level_output.body # ~line 106
MDCleanInclude.parse (the {% md_clean_include 'file.md' %} tag), approximately: md_content, _, _ = self.environment.loader.get_source(self.environment, markdown_source.value) # ~line 141 ... local_parser = Parser(self.environment, content) # ~line 150 <-- RE-PARSE top_level_output = local_parser.parse() # ~line 151 return top_level_output.body # ~line 152
Parser(self.environment, ).parse() compiles the included file's markdown text AS A JINJA TEMPLATE and splices the resulting AST .body directly into the host template's compilation. Any {{ ... }} / {% ... %} present in the included file is interpreted as template code, not emitted as literal text. The single-pass fix in render_template has no effect on this: the re-parse happens at compile time inside the tag, on a string the outer render loop never sees as data.
Environment is NOT sandboxed (UNCHANGED by the fix), trestle/core/commands/author/jinja.py _create_jinja_environment: return Environment(loader=FileSystemLoader(template_folder), extensions=extensions(), trim_blocks=True, autoescape=True) This is a plain jinja2.Environment, not jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment, so a re-parsed expression has full access to the usual Jinja SSTI gadget chain leading to OS command execution. autoescape=True HTML-escapes output but does not constrain expression evaluation, so it does not mitigate code execution.
Data bridge (partial neutralization only): the included markdown is, in trestle's documented workflow, produced from OSCAL by the trestle generators / writers. trestle/core/ssp_io.py SSPMarkdownWriter writes control statement prose (get_control_statement_ssp) and component implementation descriptions (prose = by_comp.description) into markdown with no Jinja-delimiter escaping. trestle/core/docs_control_writer.py DocsControlWriter writes control section prose (self._md_file.new_line(prose)) and part text raw. The maintainers DO know about the {{-in-data risk: ssp_io.py applies line.replace('{{', '[[').replace('}}', ']]') to neutralize delimiters, but ONLY inside the parameter-table method (_parameter_table). Control-statement prose and component description fields receive no such neutralization. So an OSCAL field such as an SSP component description, a control statement override, or a catalog part prose string that contains {{ }} lands verbatim in the generated markdown, and then the include tag re-parses and executes it.
Why this is a genuine incomplete fix (not the same bug): the parent CVE-2026-46439 re-evaluation site was the recursive loop in render_template (main template output) in commands/author/jinja.py, which the fix removed. THIS variant's re-evaluation site is Parser(self.environment, ...) inside mdsection_include / md_clean_include (included file content) in core/jinja/tags.py, which the fix did NOT touch, and which runs in a plain (non-sandboxed) Environment. Same class (SSTI -> RCE), same trust boundary (untrusted OSCAL data), different and still-live sink.
Reachability (non-destructive reasoning)
- A pipeline ingests OSCAL content (component-definition, SSP, profile, or catalog) that an external or lower-trust party can influence (a component supplier, a control-narrative contributor, an upstream catalog). This is precisely the parent's accepted attacker: a malicious actor supplies crafted OSCAL content in an automated pipeline (CI/CD).
- The pipeline runs trestle author ssp-generate (or equivalent) which writes the OSCAL prose/description fields into markdown verbatim. A field value such as {{ cycler.init.globals['os'].popen('id').read() }} survives intact (no neutralization on prose/description).
- The pipeline then runs trestle author jinja -i template.md.j2 ... where the template composes the document with {% md_clean_include 'generated_control.md' %} or {% mdsection_include 'generated_ssp.md' '# Some Section' %} (the documented populate-content-from-other-documents pattern).
- The include tag re-parses the generated markdown in the non-sandboxed environment and the embedded expression executes => code runs with the privileges of the trestle process (the CI runner).
Non-destructive confirmation: place a benign marker such as {{ 77 }} in an OSCAL prose / description field; run the generator that writes it to markdown; include that markdown with {% md_clean_include 'generated.md' %}; observe 49 rather than the literal {{ 77 }}, confirming evaluation. A malicious field would use the standard Jinja gadget chain; that is deliberately NOT included here.
Impact
Arbitrary code execution on the trestle process (the CI runner), under the same trust boundary that CVE-2026-46439 was assigned on (untrusted OSCAL data in an automated pipeline). Non-sandboxed environment => full RCE in a release that is patched for the parent CVE.
Remediation
(a) render the include re-parse through jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment, OR (b) emit the included file content as literal text (do not re-parse it as a template), OR (c) extend the {{ / }} -> [[ / ]] neutralization in ssp_io.py / docs_control_writer.py to ALL OSCAL prose / description / part-text writes, not just parameter tables. Option (a) or (b) is the durable fix; (c) is defense-in-depth.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "compliance-trestle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.12.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "compliance-trestle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57170"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1336",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-24T19:50:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-26T05:18:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Reporter: Cavan Loughran, Celvex Group Inc.\n\nSummary\n-------\nThe fix for CVE-2026-46439 (3.12.2 / 4.0.3) removed the recursive re-render loop in trestle/core/commands/author/jinja.py render_template, but the custom include tags in trestle/core/jinja/tags.py (MDSectionInclude, MDCleanInclude) still re-parse the CONTENT of an included markdown file as a Jinja2 template via Parser(self.environment, \u003cfile text\u003e).parse() in a plain (non-sandboxed) jinja2.Environment. Because the trestle markdown writers (ssp_io.py SSPMarkdownWriter, docs_control_writer.py DocsControlWriter) write OSCAL prose / component-description fields verbatim (the {{ -\u003e [[ neutralization is applied to parameter tables only), attacker-controlled OSCAL data that flows into an included markdown file is interpreted as template code and can achieve arbitrary code execution on the runner. This is the same trust boundary and impact as CVE-2026-46439 via a sink the fix did not cover.\n\nAffected versions\n-----------------\n4.0.3 and earlier on this code path (the include tags predate and were untouched by the parent fix); the 3.12.x line likewise. Verified present in the fixed release 4.0.3 by direct source read.\n\nTechnical detail\n----------------\nSink (UNCHANGED by the parent fix), trestle/core/jinja/tags.py:\n\nMDSectionInclude.parse (the {% mdsection_include \u0027file.md\u0027 \u0027# Section\u0027 %} tag), approximately:\n md_content, _, _ = self.environment.loader.get_source(self.environment, markdown_source.value) # ~line 90\n ...\n local_parser = Parser(self.environment, md_section.content.raw_text) # ~line 104 \u003c-- RE-PARSE\n top_level_output = local_parser.parse() # ~line 105\n return top_level_output.body # ~line 106\n\nMDCleanInclude.parse (the {% md_clean_include \u0027file.md\u0027 %} tag), approximately:\n md_content, _, _ = self.environment.loader.get_source(self.environment, markdown_source.value) # ~line 141\n ...\n local_parser = Parser(self.environment, content) # ~line 150 \u003c-- RE-PARSE\n top_level_output = local_parser.parse() # ~line 151\n return top_level_output.body # ~line 152\n\nParser(self.environment, \u003cincluded file text\u003e).parse() compiles the included file\u0027s markdown text AS A JINJA TEMPLATE and splices the resulting AST .body directly into the host template\u0027s compilation. Any {{ ... }} / {% ... %} present in the included file is interpreted as template code, not emitted as literal text. The single-pass fix in render_template has no effect on this: the re-parse happens at compile time inside the tag, on a string the outer render loop never sees as data.\n\nEnvironment is NOT sandboxed (UNCHANGED by the fix), trestle/core/commands/author/jinja.py _create_jinja_environment:\n return Environment(loader=FileSystemLoader(template_folder), extensions=extensions(), trim_blocks=True, autoescape=True)\nThis is a plain jinja2.Environment, not jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment, so a re-parsed expression has full access to the usual Jinja SSTI gadget chain leading to OS command execution. autoescape=True HTML-escapes output but does not constrain expression evaluation, so it does not mitigate code execution.\n\nData bridge (partial neutralization only): the included markdown is, in trestle\u0027s documented workflow, produced from OSCAL by the trestle generators / writers. trestle/core/ssp_io.py SSPMarkdownWriter writes control statement prose (get_control_statement_ssp) and component implementation descriptions (prose = by_comp.description) into markdown with no Jinja-delimiter escaping. trestle/core/docs_control_writer.py DocsControlWriter writes control section prose (self._md_file.new_line(prose)) and part text raw. The maintainers DO know about the {{-in-data risk: ssp_io.py applies line.replace(\u0027{{\u0027, \u0027[[\u0027).replace(\u0027}}\u0027, \u0027]]\u0027) to neutralize delimiters, but ONLY inside the parameter-table method (_parameter_table). Control-statement prose and component description fields receive no such neutralization. So an OSCAL field such as an SSP component description, a control statement override, or a catalog part prose string that contains {{ \u003cgadget\u003e }} lands verbatim in the generated markdown, and then the include tag re-parses and executes it.\n\nWhy this is a genuine incomplete fix (not the same bug): the parent CVE-2026-46439 re-evaluation site was the recursive loop in render_template (main template output) in commands/author/jinja.py, which the fix removed. THIS variant\u0027s re-evaluation site is Parser(self.environment, ...) inside mdsection_include / md_clean_include (included file content) in core/jinja/tags.py, which the fix did NOT touch, and which runs in a plain (non-sandboxed) Environment. Same class (SSTI -\u003e RCE), same trust boundary (untrusted OSCAL data), different and still-live sink.\n\nReachability (non-destructive reasoning)\n----------------------------------------\n1. A pipeline ingests OSCAL content (component-definition, SSP, profile, or catalog) that an external or lower-trust party can influence (a component supplier, a control-narrative contributor, an upstream catalog). This is precisely the parent\u0027s accepted attacker: a malicious actor supplies crafted OSCAL content in an automated pipeline (CI/CD).\n2. The pipeline runs trestle author ssp-generate (or equivalent) which writes the OSCAL prose/description fields into markdown verbatim. A field value such as {{ cycler.__init__.__globals__[\u0027os\u0027].popen(\u0027id\u0027).read() }} survives intact (no neutralization on prose/description).\n3. The pipeline then runs trestle author jinja -i template.md.j2 ... where the template composes the document with {% md_clean_include \u0027generated_control.md\u0027 %} or {% mdsection_include \u0027generated_ssp.md\u0027 \u0027# Some Section\u0027 %} (the documented populate-content-from-other-documents pattern).\n4. The include tag re-parses the generated markdown in the non-sandboxed environment and the embedded expression executes =\u003e code runs with the privileges of the trestle process (the CI runner).\n\nNon-destructive confirmation: place a benign marker such as {{ 7*7 }} in an OSCAL prose / description field; run the generator that writes it to markdown; include that markdown with {% md_clean_include \u0027generated.md\u0027 %}; observe 49 rather than the literal {{ 7*7 }}, confirming evaluation. A malicious field would use the standard Jinja gadget chain; that is deliberately NOT included here.\n\nImpact\n------\nArbitrary code execution on the trestle process (the CI runner), under the same trust boundary that CVE-2026-46439 was assigned on (untrusted OSCAL data in an automated pipeline). Non-sandboxed environment =\u003e full RCE in a release that is patched for the parent CVE.\n\nRemediation\n-----------\n(a) render the include re-parse through jinja2.sandbox.SandboxedEnvironment, OR (b) emit the included file content as literal text (do not re-parse it as a template), OR (c) extend the {{ / }} -\u003e [[ / ]] neutralization in ssp_io.py / docs_control_writer.py to ALL OSCAL prose / description / part-text writes, not just parameter tables. Option (a) or (b) is the durable fix; (c) is defense-in-depth.",
"id": "GHSA-mr95-65j8-9mxp",
"modified": "2026-09-24T19:50:27Z",
"published": "2026-09-24T19:50:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/oscal-compass/compliance-trestle/security/advisories/GHSA-mr95-65j8-9mxp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57170"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/oscal-compass/compliance-trestle/pull/2270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/oscal-compass/compliance-trestle/commit/0f82d19bd42f9cc0f1b3acd7fc3f6dafe3b6ae10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/oscal-compass/compliance-trestle/commit/5335ff873a2a68eb7de43df029bea09cadff22fd"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/oscal-compass/compliance-trestle"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/oscal-compass/compliance-trestle/releases/tag/v3.12.4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/oscal-compass/compliance-trestle/releases/tag/v4.1.0"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Trestle SSTI in Jinja2 include tags allows arbitrary code execution (Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-46439)"
}
GHSA-MR9J-VGMQ-CXHQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-17 03:34 – Updated: 2025-07-17 03:34The Bears Backup plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.0. This is due to the bbackup_ajax_handle() function not having a capability check, nor validating user supplied input passed directly to call_user_func(). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute code on the server which can be leverage to inject backdoors or create new administrative user accounts to name a few things. On WordPress sites running the Alone theme versions 7.8.4 and older, this can be chained with CVE-2025-5394 to install the Bears Backup plugin and achieve the same impact.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-5396"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-17T02:15:27Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The Bears Backup plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.0. This is due to the bbackup_ajax_handle() function not having a capability check, nor validating user supplied input passed directly to call_user_func(). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute code on the server which can be leverage to inject backdoors or create new administrative user accounts to name a few things. On WordPress sites running the Alone theme versions 7.8.4 and older, this can be chained with CVE-2025-5394 to install the Bears Backup plugin and achieve the same impact.",
"id": "GHSA-mr9j-vgmq-cxhq",
"modified": "2025-07-17T03:34:00Z",
"published": "2025-07-17T03:34:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-5396"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://themeforest.net/item/alone-charity-multipurpose-nonprofit-wordpress-theme/15019939"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/81b44abb-6d30-4930-b68b-9a04d93f5169?source=cve"
}
],
"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-MR9W-CM2Q-46CM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:43 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:43Eval injection vulnerability in IMAdminSchedTask.asp in the administrative interface for Symantec IM Manager 8.4.16 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified parameters to the ScheduleTask method.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-3719"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2011-02-02T01:00:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Eval injection vulnerability in IMAdminSchedTask.asp in the administrative interface for Symantec IM Manager 8.4.16 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified parameters to the ScheduleTask method.",
"id": "GHSA-mr9w-cm2q-46cm",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:43:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:43:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-3719"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/65040"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/70755"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/43143"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/516103/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/45946"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.symantec.com/security_response/securityupdates/detail.jsp?fid=security_advisory\u0026pvid=security_advisory\u0026year=2011\u0026suid=20110131_00"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2011/0259"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-11-037"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-MRF8-4985-JRWM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-07 18:32 – Updated: 2025-07-08 18:31Insufficient security mechanisms for created containers in educoder challenges v1.0 allow attackers to execute arbitrary code via injecting crafted content into a container.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-45479"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-07T16:15:23Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Insufficient security mechanisms for created containers in educoder challenges v1.0 allow attackers to execute arbitrary code via injecting crafted content into a container.",
"id": "GHSA-mrf8-4985-jrwm",
"modified": "2025-07-08T18:31:22Z",
"published": "2025-07-07T18:32:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-45479"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/YX-hueimie/CVE-Issues/blob/main/CVE-2025-45479.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.educoder.net"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.educoder.net/shixuns/fb7qhjgz/challenges"
}
],
"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-MRMH-3HQH-PFW7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-16 14:37 – Updated: 2024-09-17 21:21A vulnerability has been found in composiohq composio up to 0.5.6 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function Calculator of the file python/composio/tools/local/mathematical/actions/calculator.py. The manipulation leads to code injection. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "composio-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.5.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-8864"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-09-17T21:21:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-15T01:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in composiohq composio up to 0.5.6 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function Calculator of the file python/composio/tools/local/mathematical/actions/calculator.py. The manipulation leads to code injection. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-mrmh-3hqh-pfw7",
"modified": "2024-09-17T21:21:46Z",
"published": "2024-09-16T14:37:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-8864"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ComposioHQ/composio"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ComposioHQ/composio/blob/v0.5.6/python/composio/tools/local/mathematical/actions/calculator.py#L29"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rumbling-slice-eb0.notion.site/Composio-s-Local-tools-Mathematical-has-a-code-injection-risk-in-composiohq-composio-ea0e89ee10fe4edfb9a8cfeed158c765?pvs=4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.277501"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.277501"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.403204"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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"
}
],
"summary": "Composio Code Injection Vulnerability"
}
GHSA-MRMM-QMRJ-XGP6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-07 09:30 – Updated: 2025-01-21 18:11remote code execution in paddlepaddle/paddle 2.6.0
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "paddlepaddle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-0917"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-03-07T17:26:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-07T09:15:38Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "remote code execution in paddlepaddle/paddle 2.6.0",
"id": "GHSA-mrmm-qmrj-xgp6",
"modified": "2025-01-21T18:11:53Z",
"published": "2024-03-07T09:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-0917"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/Paddle"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/Paddle/blob/develop/python/paddle/distributed/fleet/utils/fs.py#L723"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/2d840735-e255-4700-9709-6f7361829119"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "PaddlePaddle vulnerable to remote code execution"
}
GHSA-MRP8-V53M-Q9Q9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-30 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-09 21:31JD Cloud NAS routers AX1800 (4.3.1.r4308 and earlier), AX3000 (4.3.1.r4318 and earlier), AX6600 (4.5.1.r4533 and earlier), BE6500 (4.4.1.r4308 and earlier), ER1 (4.5.1.r4518 and earlier), and ER2 (4.5.1.r4518 and earlier) contain an unauthorized remote command execution vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-66848"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-30T17:15:43Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "JD Cloud NAS routers AX1800 (4.3.1.r4308 and earlier), AX3000 (4.3.1.r4318 and earlier), AX6600 (4.5.1.r4533 and earlier), BE6500 (4.4.1.r4308 and earlier), ER1 (4.5.1.r4518 and earlier), and ER2 (4.5.1.r4518 and earlier) contain an unauthorized remote command execution vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-mrp8-v53m-q9q9",
"modified": "2026-01-09T21:31:34Z",
"published": "2025-12-30T18:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-66848"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jdcloud.com/cn"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.notion.so/JD-Cloud-Unauth-RCE-2d22b76e8e0c802c975bf186b208d0c2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://jd.com"
}
],
"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-MRQ4-7CH7-2465
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-27 18:32 – Updated: 2022-02-07 21:21PrestaShop is an Open Source e-commerce platform. Starting with version 1.7.0.0 and ending with version 1.7.8.3, an attacker is able to inject twig code inside the back office when using the legacy layout. The problem is fixed in version 1.7.8.3. There are no known workarounds.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.7.8.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "prestashop/prestashop"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.7.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.7.8.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-21686"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-01-26T22:51:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-26T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "PrestaShop is an Open Source e-commerce platform. Starting with version 1.7.0.0 and ending with version 1.7.8.3, an attacker is able to inject twig code inside the back office when using the legacy layout. The problem is fixed in version 1.7.8.3. There are no known workarounds.\n",
"id": "GHSA-mrq4-7ch7-2465",
"modified": "2022-02-07T21:21:25Z",
"published": "2022-01-27T18:32:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PrestaShop/PrestaShop/security/advisories/GHSA-mrq4-7ch7-2465"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-21686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PrestaShop/PrestaShop/commit/d02b469ec365822e6a9f017e57f588966248bf21"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PrestaShop/PrestaShop"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PrestaShop/PrestaShop/releases/tag/1.7.8.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Server Side Twig Template Injection"
}
GHSA-MRRR-7MG7-864J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-16 15:31 – Updated: 2026-09-17 21:31ScadaLTS 2.8.1-release-candidate build 0 is affected by an Authenticated Remote Code Execution via Scripting Sandbox Bypass
The DWR "DataSourceEditDwr" class exposes the "validateScript" method that compiles and executes attacker-supplied JavaScript via the Rhino scripting engine. There are no authorization checks on this method and so it is possible for an attacker with access to a low privilege user to abuse this flaw by leveraging the DWR routing bypass.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84858"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-16T15:18:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ScadaLTS 2.8.1-release-candidate build 0 is affected by an\u00a0Authenticated Remote Code Execution via Scripting Sandbox Bypass\n\n\n\nThe DWR \"DataSourceEditDwr\" class exposes the \"validateScript\" method that compiles and executes attacker-supplied JavaScript via the Rhino scripting engine. There are no authorization checks on this method and so it is possible for an attacker with access to a low privilege user to abuse this flaw by leveraging the DWR routing bypass.",
"id": "GHSA-mrrr-7mg7-864j",
"modified": "2026-09-17T21:31:35Z",
"published": "2026-09-16T15:31:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84858"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2026-60"
}
],
"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-MRV2-38V6-5385
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:24 – Updated: 2022-05-17 05:24The setName function in filesystem/File.php in SilverStripe 2.3.x before 2.3.8 and 2.4.x before 2.4.1 allows remote authenticated users with CMS author privileges to execute arbitrary PHP code by changing the extension of an uploaded file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-5091"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2012-08-26T18:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The setName function in filesystem/File.php in SilverStripe 2.3.x before 2.3.8 and 2.4.x before 2.4.1 allows remote authenticated users with CMS author privileges to execute arbitrary PHP code by changing the extension of an uploaded file.",
"id": "GHSA-mrv2-38v6-5385",
"modified": "2022-05-17T05:24:42Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T05:24:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-5091"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://dl.packetstormsecurity.net/1006-exploits/silverstripe-shell.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://doc.silverstripe.org/sapphire/en/trunk/changelogs//2.3.8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://doc.silverstripe.org/sapphire/en/trunk/changelogs//2.4.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://open.silverstripe.org/changeset/107273"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://open.silverstripe.org/ticket/5693"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/04/30/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/04/30/3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/05/01/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Mitigation
Strategy: Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Mitigation
- Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
- Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
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.
- To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
Mitigation
Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
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
For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
CAPEC-242: Code Injection
An adversary exploits a weakness in input validation on the target to inject new code into that which is currently executing. This differs from code inclusion in that code inclusion involves the addition or replacement of a reference to a code file, which is subsequently loaded by the target and used as part of the code of some application.
CAPEC-35: Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files. When the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.