Summary
A command injection vulnerability in the firmware upgrade file verification process may allow attacker-controlled data to be interpreted as operating-system commands.
If an attacker can influence verification inputs or submit a crafted upgrade file, successful exploitation could result in arbitrary command execution with the privileges of the verification process.
A command injection vulnerability in the firmware upgrade file verification process may allow attacker-controlled data to be interpreted as operating-system commands.
If an attacker can influence verification inputs or submit a crafted upgrade file, successful exploitation could result in arbitrary command execution with the privileges of the verification process.
Affected context
The vulnerability occurs in firmware upgrade workflows that process upgrade files through a verification component. It becomes risky when attacker-controlled filenames, metadata, paths, or other file-derived values are incorporated into shell commands or command interpreters without strict validation and safe argument handling.
The vulnerability occurs in firmware upgrade workflows that process upgrade files through a verification component. It becomes risky when attacker-controlled filenames, metadata, paths, or other file-derived values are incorporated into shell commands or command interpreters without strict validation and safe argument handling.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: Firmware upgrade file verification functionality
- Required access: Ability to provide, upload, replace, or otherwise influence an upgrade file or its associated metadata
- Trigger point: Verification processing performed before or during firmware installation
- Why exploitation is possible: Untrusted verification data may be embedded in an operating-system command and interpreted as executable syntax
- Attack surface: Firmware upgrade file verification functionality
- Required access: Ability to provide, upload, replace, or otherwise influence an upgrade file or its associated metadata
- Trigger point: Verification processing performed before or during firmware installation
- Why exploitation is possible: Untrusted verification data may be embedded in an operating-system command and interpreted as executable syntax
Why this happens
The underlying bug is an unsafe boundary between data used during firmware verification and command execution. A verification routine may construct shell commands by concatenating or interpolating values derived from an upgrade file, its name, metadata, or storage path.
This maps to CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command, commonly known as command injection. The insecure pattern occurs when input is passed to a command interpreter without strict allowlisting, contextual validation, or safe parameterized process APIs.
The underlying bug is an unsafe boundary between data used during firmware verification and command execution. A verification routine may construct shell commands by concatenating or interpolating values derived from an upgrade file, its name, metadata, or storage path.
This maps to CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command, commonly known as command injection. The insecure pattern occurs when input is passed to a command interpreter without strict allowlisting, contextual validation, or safe parameterized process APIs.
Potential impact
- An attacker may execute arbitrary commands on the affected device
- Device configuration or firmware integrity could be altered
- Sensitive local data may be exposed
- The device could be disrupted or rendered unavailable
- A compromised device could provide a foothold for further network activity
- An attacker may execute arbitrary commands on the affected device
- Device configuration or firmware integrity could be altered
- Sensitive local data may be exposed
- The device could be disrupted or rendered unavailable
- A compromised device could provide a foothold for further network activity
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on preventing untrusted upgrade data from becoming executable command syntax.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Use direct process-execution APIs with fixed executables and separate, non-interpreted arguments
- Avoid shell invocation and command construction through string concatenation
- Apply strict allowlisting to filenames, metadata, paths, and verification options
- Validate file structure and cryptographic properties before invoking verification tools
- Separate verification privileges from installation and system-management privileges
- Run verification in a constrained environment with minimal filesystem, network, and process permissions
- Treat uploaded or externally sourced upgrade artifacts as untrusted until validation is complete
Mitigation generally focuses on preventing untrusted upgrade data from becoming executable command syntax.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Use direct process-execution APIs with fixed executables and separate, non-interpreted arguments
- Avoid shell invocation and command construction through string concatenation
- Apply strict allowlisting to filenames, metadata, paths, and verification options
- Validate file structure and cryptographic properties before invoking verification tools
- Separate verification privileges from installation and system-management privileges
- Run verification in a constrained environment with minimal filesystem, network, and process permissions
- Treat uploaded or externally sourced upgrade artifacts as untrusted until validation is complete
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations can look for command-injection risks through:
- Static analysis rules identifying shell execution, command interpolation, and string-built process arguments
- Code review checks for upgrade metadata or filenames flowing into command execution APIs
- Tests using special-character handling and unexpected input types without relying on operational payloads
- Runtime monitoring for unusual child processes, shell invocation, or verification-related commands
- Policy enforcement that requires approved process APIs, argument separation, and allowlisted upgrade-file formats
- Automated security review tools that trace untrusted data into command-execution sinks
Organizations can look for command-injection risks through:
- Static analysis rules identifying shell execution, command interpolation, and string-built process arguments
- Code review checks for upgrade metadata or filenames flowing into command execution APIs
- Tests using special-character handling and unexpected input types without relying on operational payloads
- Runtime monitoring for unusual child processes, shell invocation, or verification-related commands
- Policy enforcement that requires approved process APIs, argument separation, and allowlisted upgrade-file formats
- Automated security review tools that trace untrusted data into command-execution sinks
