CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-4089

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

Published: Apr 29, 2025 | Modified: May 09, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
6.3 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

Due to insufficient escaping of special characters in the copy as cURL feature, an attacker could trick a user into using this command, potentially leading to local code execution on the users system. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 138 and Thunderbird < 138.

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 * 138.0 (excluding)
Thunderbird Mozilla * 138.0 (excluding)
Firefox Ubuntu focal *
Firefox Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs102 Ubuntu esm-apps/noble *
Mozjs102 Ubuntu jammy *
Mozjs102 Ubuntu noble *
Mozjs115 Ubuntu devel *
Mozjs115 Ubuntu noble *
Mozjs115 Ubuntu oracular *
Mozjs115 Ubuntu plucky *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs68 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu jammy *
Mozjs91 Ubuntu jammy *
Thunderbird Ubuntu focal *
Thunderbird Ubuntu jammy *
Thunderbird 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