Weakness (CWE)
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code
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.
How to prevent it (7 mitigations)
-
Architecture and Design
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
-
Architecture and Design
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.
-
Implementation
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().
-
Testing
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.
-
Operation
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).
-
Operation
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).
-
Implementation
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].
Source: MITRE CWE-94
575 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
Critical 9.8
Apache Struts Remote Java Code Execution
The ExceptionDelegator component in Apache Struts before 2.2.3.1 interprets parameter values as OGNL expressions during certain exception handling for mismatched data types of properties, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java code via a craf…
KEV Jan 21, 2022 -
High —CVE-2010-4879 Public exploit
DOMPDF Remote File Inclusion Vulnerability
PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in dompdf.php in dompdf 0.6.0 beta1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the input_file parameter.
-
Medium —
phpMyAdmin remote variable manipulation
libraries/auth/swekey/swekey.auth.lib.php in the Swekey authentication feature in phpMyAdmin 3.x before 3.3.10.2 and 3.4.x before 3.4.3.1 assigns values to arbitrary parameters referenced in the query string, which allows remote attackers to modify the SESSIO…
-
High —CVE-2011-2506 Public exploit
phpMyAdmin vulnerable to static code injection
setup/lib/ConfigGenerator.class.php in phpMyAdmin 3.x before 3.3.10.2 and 3.4.x before 3.4.3.1 does not properly restrict the presence of comment closing delimiters, which allows remote attackers to conduct static code injection attacks by leveraging the abil…
-
High —CVE-2010-3313 Public exploit
EGroupware Code Injection vulnerability
phpgwapi/js/fckeditor/editor/dialog/fck_spellerpages/spellerpages/serverscripts/spellchecker.php in EGroupware 1.4.001+.002; 1.6.001+.002 and possibly other versions before 1.6.003; and EPL 9.1 before 9.1.20100309 and 9.2 before 9.2.20100309; allows remote at…
-
Medium —
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') in Spring Framework
SpringSource Spring Framework 2.5.x before 2.5.6.SEC02, 2.5.7 before 2.5.7.SR01, and 3.0.x before 3.0.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via an HTTP request containing class.classLoader.URLs[0]=jar: followed by a URL of a crafted .jar file.
-
Critical 9.8
thttpd 2.25b0 writes data to a log file without sanitizing non-printable characters, which might allow remote attackers…
-
High 8.8
Unspecified vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4, 6, 6 SP1, and 7 allows remote attackers to execute a…
-
Critical 9.8
Static code injection vulnerability in setup.php in phpMyAdmin 2.11.x before 2.11.9.5 and 3.x before 3.1.3.1 allows rem…
KEV Mar 25, 2022 -
High —
PHPMailer susceptible to arbitrary code execution
html2text.php in Chuggnutt HTML to Text Converter, as used in PHPMailer before 5.2.10, RoundCube Webmail (roundcubemail) 0.2-1.alpha and 0.2-3.beta, Mahara, and AtMail Open 1.03, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted input that is proc…
-
Critical 9.8CVE-2008-1511 Public exploit
Multiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in ooComments 1.0 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP co…
-
Critical 9.8
Unspecified vulnerability in BitDefender allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors, aka EEYEB-…
-
Critical 9.8CVE-2006-5021 Public exploit
Multiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in redgun RedBLoG 0.5 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PH…
-
High 8.8
Integer overflow in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP SP2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of servic…
-
High 7.3CVE-2005-3302 Public exploit
Eval injection vulnerability in bvh_import.py in Blender 2.36 allows attackers to execute arbitrary Python code via a h…