The software does not sufficiently delimit the arguments being passed to a component in another control sphere, allowing alternate arguments to be provided, leading to potentially security-relevant changes.
Time of Introduction
Architecture and Design
Implementation
Applicable Platforms
Languages
All
Common Consequences
Scope
Effect
Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability
Other
Technical Impact: Execute unauthorized code or
commands; Alter execution
logic; Read application
data; Modify application
data
An attacker could include arguments that allow unintended commands or
code to be executed, allow sensitive data to be read or modified or
could cause other unintended behavior.
Demonstrative Examples
Example 1
The following simple program accepts a filename as a command line
argument and displays the contents of the file back to the user. The program
is installed setuid root because it is intended for use as a learning tool
to allow system administrators in-training to inspect privileged system
files without giving them the ability to modify them or damage the
system.
(Bad Code)
Example
Language: C
int main(char* argc, char** argv) {
char cmd[CMD_MAX] = "/usr/bin/cat ";
strcat(cmd, argv[1]);
system(cmd);
}
Because the program runs with root privileges, the call to system()
also executes with root privileges. If a user specifies a standard
filename, the call works as expected. However, if an attacker passes a
string of the form ";rm -rf /", then the call to system() fails to
execute cat due to a lack of arguments and then plows on to recursively
delete the contents of the root partition.
Web browser executes Telnet sessions using
command line arguments that are specified by the web site, which could allow
remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands.
Web browser allows remote attackers to execute
commands by spawning Telnet with a log file option on the command line and
writing arbitrary code into an executable file which is later executed.
Argument injection vulnerability in the mail
function for PHP may allow attackers to bypass safe mode restrictions and
modify command line arguments to the MTA (e.g. sendmail) possibly executing
commands.
Help and Support center in windows does not
properly validate HCP URLs, which allows remote attackers to execute
arbitrary code via quotation marks in an "hcp://" URL.
Mail client does not sufficiently filter
parameters of mailto: URLs when using them as arguments to mail executable,
which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary programs.
Mail client allows remote attackers to execute
arbitrary code via a URI that uses a UNC network share pathname to provide
an alternate configuration file.
Argument injection vulnerability in TellMe 1.2 and
earlier allows remote attackers to modify command line arguments for the
Whois program and obtain sensitive information via "--" style options in the
q_Host parameter.
Beagle before 0.2.5 can produce certain insecure
command lines to launch external helper applications while indexing, which
allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands. NOTE: it is not immediately
clear whether this issue involves argument injection, shell metacharacters,
or other issues.
Argument injection vulnerability in Internet
Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP2 allows user-assisted remote attackers to
modify command line arguments to an invoked mail client via " (double quote)
characters in a mailto: scheme handler, as demonstrated by launching
Microsoft Outlook with an arbitrary filename as an attachment. NOTE: it is
not clear whether this issue is implementation-specific or a problem in the
Microsoft API.
Argument injection vulnerability in Mozilla
Firefox 1.0.6 allows user-assisted remote attackers to modify command line
arguments to an invoked mail client via " (double quote) characters in a
mailto: scheme handler, as demonstrated by launching Microsoft Outlook with
an arbitrary filename as an attachment. NOTE: it is not clear whether this
issue is implementation-specific or a problem in the Microsoft
API.
Argument injection vulnerability in Avant Browser
10.1 Build 17 allows user-assisted remote attackers to modify command line
arguments to an invoked mail client via " (double quote) characters in a
mailto: scheme handler, as demonstrated by launching Microsoft Outlook with
an arbitrary filename as an attachment. NOTE: it is not clear whether this
issue is implementation-specific or a problem in the Microsoft
API.
Argument injection vulnerability in the URI
handler in Skype 2.0.*.104 and 2.5.*.0 through 2.5.*.78 for Windows allows
remote authorized attackers to download arbitrary files via a URL that
contains certain command-line switches.
Argument injection vulnerability in WinSCP 3.8.1
build 328 allows remote attackers to upload or download arbitrary files via
encoded spaces and double-quote characters in a scp or sftp
URI.
Argument injection vulnerability in the Windows
Object Packager (packager.exe) in Microsoft Windows XP SP1 and SP2 and
Server 2003 SP1 and earlier allows remote user-assisted attackers to execute
arbitrary commands via a crafted file with a "/" (slash) character in the
filename of the Command Line property, followed by a valid file extension,
which causes the command before the slash to be executed, aka "Object
Packager Dialogue Spoofing Vulnerability."
Argument injection vulnerability in HyperAccess
8.4 allows user-assisted remote attackers to execute arbitrary vbscript and
commands via the /r option in a telnet:// URI, which is configured to use
hawin32.exe.
Argument injection vulnerability in the telnet
daemon (in.telnetd) in Solaris 10 and 11 (SunOS 5.10 and 5.11) misinterprets
certain client "-f" sequences as valid requests for the login program to
skip authentication, which allows remote attackers to log into certain
accounts, as demonstrated by the bin account.
Language interpreter's mail function accepts another argument that is concatenated to a string used in a dangerous popen() call. Since there is no neutralization of this argument, both OS Command Injection (CWE-78) and Argument Injection (CWE-88) are possible.
Potential Mitigations
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter
your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the
network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL
components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that
provide data to the application. Perform input validation at
well-defined interfaces.
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input
validation strategy, i.e., use a whitelist 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
(i.e., do not rely on a blacklist). A blacklist 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, blacklists can be useful for detecting potential
attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be
rejected outright.
Phase: Implementation
Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as
using a conversion function that translates a string into a number.
After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's
values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that
multi-field consistencies are maintained.
Phase: Implementation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass whitelist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does
not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar
scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to
contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
Phase: Implementation
When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components
are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding
is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using
whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
Phase: Implementation
When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the
validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data
elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended
restrictions after they have been combined.
Phase: Testing
Use automated static analysis tools that target this type of weakness.
Many modern techniques use data flow analysis to minimize the number of
false positives. This is not a perfect solution, since 100% accuracy and
coverage are not feasible.
Phase: Testing
Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using
large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing
(fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's
operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or
generate incorrect results.
Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality
Description
Primary
(where
the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
At one layer of abstraction, this can overlap other weaknesses that have
whitespace problems, e.g. injection of javascript into attributes of HTML
tags.
Affected Resources
System Process
Causal Nature
Explicit
Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name
Node ID
Fit
Mapped Node Name
PLOVER
Argument Injection or Modification
CERT C Secure Coding
ENV03-C
Sanitize the environment when invoking external
programs
CERT C Secure Coding
ENV04-C
Do not call system() if you do not need a command
processor
CERT C Secure Coding
STR02-C
Sanitize data passed to complex subsystems
WASC
30
Mail Command Injection
CERT C++ Secure Coding
STR02-CPP
Sanitize data passed to complex subsystems
CERT C++ Secure Coding
ENV03-CPP
Sanitize the environment when invoking external
programs
CERT C++ Secure Coding
ENV04-CPP
Do not call system() if you do not need a command
processor
[REF-7] Mark Dowd, John McDonald
and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 10, "The Argument Array", Page
567.. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
Description
