CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-35390

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

Published: Aug 08, 2023 | Modified: Jan 01, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.8 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

.NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

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
.net Microsoft 6.0.0 (including) 6.0.21 (excluding)
.net Microsoft 7.0.0 (including) 7.0.10 (excluding)
Visual_studio_2022 Microsoft 17.2.0 (including) 17.2.18 (excluding)
Visual_studio_2022 Microsoft 17.4.0 (including) 17.4.10 (excluding)
Visual_studio_2022 Microsoft 17.6.0 (including) 17.6.6 (excluding)
.NET Core on Red Hat Enterprise Linux RedHat rh-dotnet60-dotnet-0:6.0.121-1.el7_9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat dotnet7.0-0:7.0.110-1.el8_8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat dotnet6.0-0:6.0.121-1.el8_8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support RedHat dotnet6.0-0:6.0.121-1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat dotnet7.0-0:7.0.110-1.el9_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat dotnet6.0-0:6.0.121-1.el9_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Extended Update Support RedHat dotnet6.0-0:6.0.121-1.el9_0 *
Dotnet6 Ubuntu devel *
Dotnet6 Ubuntu jammy *
Dotnet6 Ubuntu lunar *
Dotnet6 Ubuntu upstream *
Dotnet7 Ubuntu devel *
Dotnet7 Ubuntu jammy *
Dotnet7 Ubuntu lunar *
Dotnet7 Ubuntu upstream *

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