CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2020-6811

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

Published: Mar 25, 2020 | Modified: Apr 11, 2022
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
8.8 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

The Copy as cURL feature of Devtools network tab did not properly escape the HTTP method of a request, which can be controlled by the website. If a user used the Copy as Curl feature and pasted the command into a terminal, it could have resulted in command injection and arbitrary command execution. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 68.6, Firefox < 74, Firefox < ESR68.6, and Firefox ESR < 68.6.

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
Firefox Mozilla * 74.0 (excluding)
Firefox_esr Mozilla * 68.6.0 (excluding)
Thunderbird Mozilla * 68.6.0 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat firefox-0:68.6.0-1.el6_10 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat thunderbird-0:68.6.0-1.el6_10 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat firefox-0:68.6.0-1.el7_7 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat thunderbird-0:68.6.0-1.el7_7 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat firefox-0:68.6.0-1.el8_1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat thunderbird-0:68.6.0-1.el8_1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.0 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat firefox-0:68.6.0-1.el8_0 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.0 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat thunderbird-0:68.6.0-1.el8_0 *
Firefox Ubuntu bionic *
Firefox Ubuntu devel *
Firefox Ubuntu eoan *
Firefox Ubuntu focal *
Firefox Ubuntu groovy *
Firefox Ubuntu hirsute *
Firefox Ubuntu impish *
Firefox Ubuntu jammy *
Firefox Ubuntu kinetic *
Firefox Ubuntu lunar *
Firefox Ubuntu mantic *
Firefox Ubuntu noble *
Firefox Ubuntu trusty *
Firefox Ubuntu upstream *
Firefox Ubuntu xenial *
Mozjs38 Ubuntu bionic *
Mozjs38 Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Mozjs38 Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu bionic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu eoan *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu groovy *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs60 Ubuntu eoan *
Mozjs60 Ubuntu upstream *
Thunderbird Ubuntu bionic *
Thunderbird Ubuntu devel *
Thunderbird Ubuntu eoan *
Thunderbird Ubuntu focal *
Thunderbird Ubuntu groovy *
Thunderbird Ubuntu hirsute *
Thunderbird Ubuntu impish *
Thunderbird Ubuntu jammy *
Thunderbird Ubuntu kinetic *
Thunderbird Ubuntu lunar *
Thunderbird Ubuntu mantic *
Thunderbird Ubuntu noble *
Thunderbird Ubuntu trusty *
Thunderbird Ubuntu upstream *
Thunderbird 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