CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-53899

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

Published: Nov 24, 2024 | Modified: Nov 26, 2024
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
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

virtualenv before 20.26.6 allows command injection through the activation scripts for a virtual environment. Magic template strings are not quoted correctly when replacing. NOTE: this is not the same as CVE-2024-9287.

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
Virtualenv Virtualenv * 20.26.6 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support RedHat python-virtualenv-0:15.1.0-7.el7_9.1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat python36:3.6-8100020241203074044.4c5117ad *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support RedHat python36:3.6-8020020241213084804.606b8f18 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support RedHat python36:3.6-8060020241213062726.448f2761 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat python36:3.6-8060020241213062726.448f2761 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat python36:3.6-8060020241213062726.448f2761 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat python36:3.6-8080020241205132428.075014fc *
Python-virtualenv Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Python-virtualenv 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