CVE-2012-1823

sapi/cgi/cgi_main.c in PHP before 5.3.12 and 5.4.x before 5.4.2, when configured as a CGI script (aka php-cgi), does not properly handle query strings that lack an = (equals sign) character, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by placing command-line options in the query string, related to lack of skipping a certain php_getopt for the d case.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

Affected Software

Name	Vendor	Start Version	End Version
Php	Php	*	5.3.12 (excluding)
Php	Php	5.4.0 (including)	5.4.2 (excluding)
Php5	Ubuntu	devel	*
Php5	Ubuntu	hardy	*
Php5	Ubuntu	lucid	*
Php5	Ubuntu	natty	*
Php5	Ubuntu	oneiric	*
Php5	Ubuntu	precise	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5	RedHat	php-0:5.1.6-34.el5_8	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5	RedHat	php53-0:5.3.3-7.el5_8	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.3 Long Life	RedHat	php-0:5.1.6-23.3.el5_3	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 EUS - Server Only	RedHat	php-0:5.1.6-27.el5_6.4	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 EUS - Server Only	RedHat	php53-0:5.3.3-1.el5_6.2	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	RedHat	php-0:5.3.3-3.el6_2.8	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 EUS - Server Only	RedHat	php-0:5.3.2-6.el6_0.2	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.1 EUS - Server Only	RedHat	php-0:5.3.3-3.el6_1.4	*

Extended Description

Command injection vulnerabilities typically occur when:

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks. Command injection is a common problem with wrapper programs.

Potential Mitigations

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.

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-1823
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

Weakness

Affected Software

Extended Description

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2012-1823

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

Weakness

Affected Software

Extended Description

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References