Summary
A critical OS command injection vulnerability in the AUTOM8N WHM/cPanel plugin affects the borg_restore.cgi component. If attacker-controlled input reaches an operating-system command without adequate separation or validation, an attacker may execute commands with the privileges of the web-server process.
A critical OS command injection vulnerability in the AUTOM8N WHM/cPanel plugin affects the borg_restore.cgi component. If attacker-controlled input reaches an operating-system command without adequate separation or validation, an attacker may execute commands with the privileges of the web-server process.
Affected context
The issue occurs in deployments using the AUTOM8N WHM/cPanel plugin where borg_restore.cgi is exposed through a reachable CGI request path and uses request-controlled data while constructing or invoking operating-system commands. Exploitability depends on the component's access controls, deployment configuration, and the privileges available to the CGI process.
The issue occurs in deployments using the AUTOM8N WHM/cPanel plugin where borg_restore.cgi is exposed through a reachable CGI request path and uses request-controlled data while constructing or invoking operating-system commands. Exploitability depends on the component's access controls, deployment configuration, and the privileges available to the CGI process.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: The borg_restore.cgi CGI endpoint or an interface that
invokes it
- Required access: Ability to reach the relevant endpoint and supply
attacker-controlled input; authentication requirements depend on the
deployment's WHM/cPanel access controls
- Trigger point: Processing of attacker-influenced data during a Borg
restore-related operation
- Why exploitation is possible: Input may be incorporated into an
operating-system command without sufficient command separation, validation,
or safe argument handling
- Attack surface: The borg_restore.cgi CGI endpoint or an interface that
invokes it
- Required access: Ability to reach the relevant endpoint and supply
attacker-controlled input; authentication requirements depend on the
deployment's WHM/cPanel access controls
- Trigger point: Processing of attacker-influenced data during a Borg
restore-related operation
- Why exploitation is possible: Input may be incorporated into an
operating-system command without sufficient command separation, validation,
or safe argument handling
Why this happens
The underlying flaw is command construction or execution that permits untrusted data to influence the interpretation of an operating-system command. This behavior maps to CWE-94, Improper Control of Generation of Code, because application data can become executable command syntax rather than remaining a strictly bounded argument. The risk is increased when shell evaluation is used instead of an argument-safe process execution interface.
The underlying flaw is command construction or execution that permits untrusted data to influence the interpretation of an operating-system command. This behavior maps to CWE-94, Improper Control of Generation of Code, because application data can become executable command syntax rather than remaining a strictly bounded argument. The risk is increased when shell evaluation is used instead of an argument-safe process execution interface.
Potential impact
- An attacker may execute arbitrary operating-system commands.
- The attacker could access, alter, or delete data available to the CGI process.
- The vulnerability may enable compromise of hosted websites or control-panel data.
- A successful attack can provide a foothold for privilege escalation or lateral movement.
- Service availability may be affected through destructive or resource-intensive commands.
- An attacker may execute arbitrary operating-system commands.
- The attacker could access, alter, or delete data available to the CGI process.
- The vulnerability may enable compromise of hosted websites or control-panel data.
- A successful attack can provide a foothold for privilege escalation or lateral movement.
- Service availability may be affected through destructive or resource-intensive commands.
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on removing shell interpretation from application-controlled operations and reducing the trust placed in request parameters. Secure-by-default patterns include invoking programs through APIs that pass a fixed executable and separately bounded arguments, avoiding shell evaluation, applying strict allowlists for supported restore options, and validating values against expected formats. CGI processes should run with only the privileges and filesystem access required for their function, while administrative interfaces should enforce strong authentication, authorization, and network exposure controls.
Mitigation generally focuses on removing shell interpretation from application-controlled operations and reducing the trust placed in request parameters. Secure-by-default patterns include invoking programs through APIs that pass a fixed executable and separately bounded arguments, avoiding shell evaluation, applying strict allowlists for supported restore options, and validating values against expected formats. CGI processes should run with only the privileges and filesystem access required for their function, while administrative interfaces should enforce strong authentication, authorization, and network exposure controls.
How teams detect issues like this
Detection approaches can include static analysis for shell invocation APIs, string-based command construction, concatenation or interpolation of request values, and unsafe process-spawning patterns. Code reviews should examine CGI parameters and restore options for missing allowlists, shell quoting, and authorization checks. Runtime monitoring can alert on unusual child-process creation or command execution by the web-server account, and policy enforcement can restrict administrative CGI exposure and high-risk process execution. Automated security review tools may help identify these patterns during development.
Detection approaches can include static analysis for shell invocation APIs, string-based command construction, concatenation or interpolation of request values, and unsafe process-spawning patterns. Code reviews should examine CGI parameters and restore options for missing allowlists, shell quoting, and authorization checks. Runtime monitoring can alert on unusual child-process creation or command execution by the web-server account, and policy enforcement can restrict administrative CGI exposure and high-risk process execution. Automated security review tools may help identify these patterns during development.
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| github. | github.com/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
