CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-24150

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

Published: Jan 27, 2025 | Modified: Feb 05, 2025
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
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

A privacy issue was addressed with improved handling of files. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.3, Safari 18.3, iOS 18.3 and iPadOS 18.3. Copying a URL from Web Inspector may lead to command injection.

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
Safari Apple * 18.3 (excluding)
Ipados Apple * 18.3 (excluding)
Iphone_os Apple * 18.3 (excluding)
Macos Apple * 15.3 (excluding)
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu devel *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu esm-apps/jammy *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu esm-apps/noble *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu focal *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu jammy *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu noble *
Qtwebkit-opensource-src Ubuntu oracular *
Qtwebkit-source Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Qtwebkit-source Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu devel *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu focal *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu jammy *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu noble *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu oracular *
Webkit2gtk Ubuntu upstream *
Webkitgtk Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Webkitgtk Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Wpewebkit Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Wpewebkit Ubuntu esm-apps/jammy *
Wpewebkit Ubuntu focal *
Wpewebkit Ubuntu jammy *
Wpewebkit 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