Summary
A command injection vulnerability in the pairing process may allow an unauthenticated attacker to cause system commands to run on an affected product. The risk arises when pairing-related input is incorporated into operating-system commands without adequate separation, validation, or escaping.
A command injection vulnerability in the pairing process may allow an unauthenticated attacker to cause system commands to run on an affected product. The risk arises when pairing-related input is incorporated into operating-system commands without adequate separation, validation, or escaping.
Affected context
The vulnerability occurs in affected products while they process pairing requests or pairing-related data. It may be present when externally controlled values reach a system command execution path without being safely handled, allowing crafted pairing input to influence command interpretation.
The vulnerability occurs in affected products while they process pairing requests or pairing-related data. It may be present when externally controlled values reach a system command execution path without being safely handled, allowing crafted pairing input to influence command interpretation.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: The product's pairing interface or service
- Required access: No authentication may be required according to the vulnerability description
- Trigger point: Processing of attacker-controlled data during the pairing process
- Why exploitation is possible: Pairing input may be passed to an operating-system command interpreter or command execution function without sufficient isolation from command syntax
- Attack surface: The product's pairing interface or service
- Required access: No authentication may be required according to the vulnerability description
- Trigger point: Processing of attacker-controlled data during the pairing process
- Why exploitation is possible: Pairing input may be passed to an operating-system command interpreter or command execution function without sufficient isolation from command syntax
Why this happens
The underlying issue is the construction or execution of operating-system commands using data that can be influenced by an external requester. When input is concatenated into a shell command or otherwise interpreted as command syntax, an attacker may alter the intended operation and introduce additional commands. This behavior maps to CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command, commonly known as OS command injection.
The underlying issue is the construction or execution of operating-system commands using data that can be influenced by an external requester. When input is concatenated into a shell command or otherwise interpreted as command syntax, an attacker may alter the intended operation and introduce additional commands. This behavior maps to CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command, commonly known as OS command injection.
Potential impact
- An attacker may execute arbitrary system commands in the product's security context
- System files, configuration, or pairing data could be read or modified
- The affected device or service could be disrupted
- Credentials or sensitive information may be exposed
- A compromised product could be used to access connected systems, depending on network placement and privileges
- An attacker may execute arbitrary system commands in the product's security context
- System files, configuration, or pairing data could be read or modified
- The affected device or service could be disrupted
- Credentials or sensitive information may be exposed
- A compromised product could be used to access connected systems, depending on network placement and privileges
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on eliminating shell interpretation and reducing trust in pairing inputs.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Prefer direct process APIs with fixed executable paths and structured argument arrays instead of shell-based command construction
- Apply strict allowlist validation for pairing fields according to their expected type, length, and character set
- Keep user-controlled values separate from executable commands and avoid dynamic command concatenation
- Apply least-privilege permissions to pairing services and subprocesses
- Restrict pairing interfaces through authentication, authorization, network segmentation, and rate limiting where appropriate
- Use secure-by-default pairing workflows that reject malformed or unexpected input
Mitigation generally focuses on eliminating shell interpretation and reducing trust in pairing inputs.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Prefer direct process APIs with fixed executable paths and structured argument arrays instead of shell-based command construction
- Apply strict allowlist validation for pairing fields according to their expected type, length, and character set
- Keep user-controlled values separate from executable commands and avoid dynamic command concatenation
- Apply least-privilege permissions to pairing services and subprocesses
- Restrict pairing interfaces through authentication, authorization, network segmentation, and rate limiting where appropriate
- Use secure-by-default pairing workflows that reject malformed or unexpected input
How teams detect issues like this
Detection approaches may include:
- Static analysis rules for shell invocation, command concatenation, and execution APIs receiving externally controlled values
- Code review checks for pairing fields flowing into subprocess, shell, or system-command functions
- Runtime monitoring for unexpected child processes, unusual command-line arguments, or abnormal pairing activity
- Policy enforcement that prohibits shell execution for network-facing request handlers unless explicitly justified
- Automated security scanning and code review tools that identify command-injection data flows
Detection approaches may include:
- Static analysis rules for shell invocation, command concatenation, and execution APIs receiving externally controlled values
- Code review checks for pairing fields flowing into subprocess, shell, or system-command functions
- Runtime monitoring for unexpected child processes, unusual command-line arguments, or abnormal pairing activity
- Policy enforcement that prohibits shell execution for network-facing request handlers unless explicitly justified
- Automated security scanning and code review tools that identify command-injection data flows
