Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-1010174

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

Published: Jul 25, 2019 | Modified: Mar 01, 2023
CVSS 3.x
9.8
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
7.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1010174
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html

CImg The CImg Library v.2.3.3 and earlier is affected by: command injection. The impact is: RCE. The component is: load_network() function. The attack vector is: Loading an image from a user-controllable url can lead to command injection, because no string sanitization is done on the url. The fixed version is: v.2.3.4.

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
Cimg_library Cimg * 2.3.4 (excluding)
Cimg Ubuntu bionic *
Cimg Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Cimg Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Cimg Ubuntu trusty *
Cimg Ubuntu upstream *
Cimg Ubuntu xenial *
Gmic Ubuntu bionic *
Gmic Ubuntu disco *
Gmic Ubuntu eoan *
Gmic Ubuntu groovy *
Gmic Ubuntu hirsute *
Gmic Ubuntu impish *
Gmic Ubuntu kinetic *
Gmic Ubuntu trusty *
Gmic Ubuntu upstream *
Gmic Ubuntu xenial *

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.

References

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2024 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use