CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-24132

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

Published: Jan 23, 2026 | Modified: Jan 26, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Orval generates type-safe JS clients (TypeScript) from any valid OpenAPI v3 or Swagger v2 specification. Versions 7.19.0 and below and 8.0.0-rc.0 through 8.0.2 allow untrusted OpenAPI specifications to inject arbitrary TypeScript/JavaScript into generated mock files via the const keyword on schema properties. These const values are interpolated into the mock scalar generator (getMockScalar in packages/mock/src/faker/getters/scalar.ts) without proper escaping or type-safe serialization, which results in attacker-controlled code being emitted into both interface definitions and faker/MSW handlers. The vulnerability is similar in impact to the previously reported enum x-enumDescriptions (GHSA-h526-wf6g-67jv), but it affects a different code path in the faker-based mock generator rather than @orval/core. The issue has been fixed in versions 7.20.0 and 8.0.3.

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.

Extended Description

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.

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