CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code… | Glexia

Causes

• This example attempts to write user messages to a message file and allow users to view them. While the programmer intends for the MessageFile to only include data, an attacker can provide a message such as: which will decode to the following: The programmer thought they were just including the contents of a regular data file, but PHP parsed it and executed the code. Now, this code is executed any time people view messages. Notice that XSS (CWE-79) is also possible in this situation.
• edit-config.pl: This CGI script is used to modify settings in a configuration file. The script intends to take the 'action' parameter and invoke one of a variety of functions based on the value of that parameter - config_file_add_key(), config_file_set_key(), or config_file_delete_key(). It could set up a conditional to invoke each function separately, but eval() is a powerful way of doing the same thing in fewer lines of code, especially when a large number of functions or variables are involved. Unfortunately, in this case, the attacker can provide other values in the action parameter, such as: This would produce the following string in handleConfigAction(): Any arbitrary Perl code could be added after the attacker has "closed off" the construction of the original function call, in order to prevent parsing errors from causing the malicious eval() to fail before the attacker's payload is activated. This particular manipulation would fail after the system() call, because the "_key(\$fname, \$key, \$val)" portion of the string would cause an error, but this is irrelevant to the attack because the payload has already been activated.
• This simple python3 script asks a user to supply a comma-separated list of numbers as input and adds them together. The eval() function can take the user-supplied list and convert it into a Python list object, therefore allowing the programmer to use list comprehension methods to work with the data. However, if code is supplied to the eval() function, it will execute that code. For example, a malicious user could supply the following string: This would delete all the files in the current directory. For this reason, it is not recommended to use eval() with untrusted input. A way to accomplish this without the use of eval() is to apply an integer conversion on the input within a try/except block. If the user-supplied input is not numeric, this will raise a ValueError. By avoiding eval(), there is no opportunity for the input string to be executed as code. An alternative, commonly-cited mitigation for this kind of weakness is to use the ast.literal_eval() function, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
• The following code is a workflow job written using YAML. The code attempts to download pull request artifacts, unzip from the artifact called pr.zip and extract the value of the file NR into a variable "pr_number" that will be used later in another job. It attempts to create a github workflow environment variable, writing to $GITHUB_ENV. The environment variable value is retrieved from an external resource. The code does not neutralize the value of the file NR, e.g. by validating that NR only contains a number (CWE-1284). The NR file is attacker controlled because it originates from a pull request that produced pr.zip. The attacker could escape the existing pr_number and create a new variable using a "\n" (CWE-93) followed by any environment variable to be added such as: This would result in injecting and running javascript code (CWE-94) on the workflow runner with elevated privileges.

Remediation

• Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
• Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
• Implementation: 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
• Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
• Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
• Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

Detection

• Automated Static Analysis: Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Related CWEs

• CWE-1336: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
• CWE-74: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
• CWE-74: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
• CWE-913: Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
• CWE-95: Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')
• CWE-96: Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection')
• CWE-98: Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion')

Related CVEs

Related CVE mappings appear after CVE records are cross-indexed.

ATT&CK Relevance

ATT&CK relevance is shown only when reviewed or responsibly inferred.