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
1,737 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
High —
Cobbler is vulnerable to code injection
template_api.py in Cobbler before 2.0.7, as used in Red Hat Network Satellite Server and other products, does not disable the ability of the Cheetah template engine to execute Python statements contained in templates, which allows remote authenticated adminis…
-
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…
-
High 7.5CVE-2010-1260 EPSS 19%
The IE8 Developer Toolbar in Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 SP1, SP2, and SP3 allows user-assisted remote attackers to e…
-
High —
TYPO3 PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability
PHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in the autoloader in TYPO3 4.3.x before 4.3.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in an input field associated with the className variable.
-
High 8.1CVE-2010-0492 EPSS 28%
Use-after-free vulnerability in mstime.dll in Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrar…
-
High —
TYPO3 Backend Command Injection via Shell Metacharacters in Uploaded File Name
The Backend subcomponent in TYPO3 4.0.13 and earlier, 4.1.x before 4.1.13, 4.2.x before 4.2.10, and 4.3.x before 4.3beta2, when the DAM extension or ftp upload is enabled, allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacter…
-
High 8.8
Unspecified vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4, 6, 6 SP1, and 7 allows remote attackers to execute a…
-
High 8.1CVE-2009-2529 EPSS 20%
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4, 6, 6 SP1, 7, and 8 does not properly handle argument validation for unspecified v…
-
High —
Cobbler Web Interface Kickstart Template Remote Privilege Escalation Vulnerability
The web interface (CobblerWeb) in Cobbler before 1.2.9 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary Python code in cobblerd by editing a Cheetah kickstart template to import arbitrary Python modules.
-
High 8.8CVE-2009-2493 EPSS 38%
The Active Template Library (ATL) in Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 SP1, Visual Studio 2005 SP1 and 2008 Gold and SP…
-
High 7.8
Excel in Microsoft Office 2000 SP3, Office XP SP3, Office 2003 SP3, and Office 2004 and 2008 for Mac; Excel in 2007 Mic…
KEV Jun 8, 2022 -
High 8.8
Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2000 SP3, 2002 SP3, and 2003 SP3, and PowerPoint in Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac, allows r…
KEV Jan 7, 2026 -
High 8.8
Microsoft Office Excel 2000 SP3, 2002 SP3, 2003 SP3, and 2007 SP1; Excel Viewer 2003 Gold and SP3; Excel Viewer; Compat…
KEV Apr 14, 2026 -
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…
-
High —
Ruby on Rails vulnerable to code injection
Ruby on Rails before 1.1.5 allows remote attackers to execute Ruby code with "severe" or "serious" impact via a File Upload request with an HTTP header that modifies the LOAD_PATH variable, a different vulnerability than CVE-2006-4112.
-
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…