agentleFS
ajtazerajtazer/heckit/skills/cve-hunting/command-injection/SKILL.md

command-injection

Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Detect OS command injection via shell execution sinks where user-controlled input reaches system commands without proper sanitization.

  • Reads credentials
  • Deletes or force-pushes

5 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use open-redirect.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • yaklangSkill

    open-redirect

    Open redirect playbook. Use when URL parameters, form actions, or JavaScript sinks control navigation targets and may redirect users to attacker-controlled destinations.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Not bypassable (blocklists are almost always bypassable)

    line 83

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Command Injection Detection

When to Use

Audit any package that wraps CLI tools, runs build commands, processes files via external programs, or interfaces with git/ffmpeg/imagemagick/pandoc/etc.

CVSS is typically CRITICAL 9.8 for confirmed RCE.

Key Distinctions

Command Injection vs Argument Injection

  • Command injection: Attacker breaks out of the intended command entirely (; rm -rf /)
  • Argument injection: Attacker adds flags to the intended command (--upload-pack=malicious)
  • Both are reportable. Command injection is CRITICAL, argument injection is HIGH.

Shell vs No-Shell Execution

  • Shell execution (exec, system, os.popen): Command string passed to shell interpreter. Metacharacters (;, |, &&, backticks, $()) are interpreted. DANGEROUS.
  • Direct execution (execFile, spawn without shell, subprocess with list args): Arguments passed directly to the program. No shell interpretation. SAFER but argument injection may still work.

Process

Step 1: Find Shell Execution Sinks

# JavaScript/TypeScript — look for child_process usage
grep -rn "child_process" .
grep -rn "\.exec\('" .
grep -rn "\.execSync\(" .
grep -rn "spawn.*shell.*true" .
grep -rn "shelljs" .

# Python
grep -rn "os\.system\|os\.popen" .
grep -rn "subprocess.*shell.*True" .
grep -rn "commands\.getoutput\|commands\.getstatusoutput" .

# Go
grep -rn 'exec\.Command.*"bash"\|exec\.Command.*"sh"' .

# Ruby
grep -rn "system(\|%x{" . --include="*.rb"
grep -rn "IO\.popen\|Open3" .

# PHP
grep -rn "system(\|passthru(\|shell_exec(\|popen(" .
grep -rn "proc_open\|pcntl_exec" .

Step 2: Trace User Input to Sink

For each sink:

  1. What command string is constructed?
  2. Is any part from user input (HTTP params, filenames, config values)?
  3. Is the user input interpolated into a shell string or passed as an argument array?

Step 3: Check Sanitization

grep -rn "escapeshellarg\|escapeshellcmd\|shlex\.quote\|shellescape" .
grep -rn "sanitize\|escape\|clean\|validate" .

Verify sanitization is:

  • Applied to ALL user-controlled parts (not just some)
  • Using the right function (escapeshellarg vs escapeshellcmd)
  • Not bypassable (blocklists are almost always bypassable)

Step 4: Check for Argument Injection

Even with execFile/spawn (no shell), check for:

  • --flag injection: user input starts with - or --
  • Git-specific: --upload-pack, -c core.fsmonitor, --config
  • Arguments that accept commands: --exec, --filter, --diff-filter
  • Double-dash (--) separator missing before user-controlled args

Common Vulnerable Patterns

Pattern 1: String Interpolation in Shell Execution

// VULNERABLE — shell interprets metacharacters
const cp = require('child_process');
cp.exec(`convert ${inputFile} ${outputFile}`);
// Exploit: inputFile = "; id; #"

Pattern 2: Filename-Based Injection

cp.exec(`file "${filename}"`);
// Exploit: filename = '$(id).txt' or filename = '"; id; #"'

Pattern 3: Git Argument Injection

// Even without shell, git interprets dangerous flags
cp.execFile('git', ['clone', userUrl, '--config', 'core.fsmonitor=id']);

Pattern 4: Environment Variable Injection

cp.exec(command, { env: { ...process.env, USER_INPUT: untrusted } });
// If command references $USER_INPUT or uses env vars unsafely

Pattern 5: Newline Injection

cp.execFile('program', ['--option=' + userInput]);
// Exploit: userInput = "value\n--dangerous-flag"

Grep Patterns by Vulnerability Type

Direct Shell Injection

grep -rn "exec\(.*\+" .        # String concatenation in exec
grep -rn "exec\(.*\$\{" .      # Template literal in exec
grep -rn "exec\(.*%" .         # Format string in exec (Python)

Argument Injection

grep -rn "execFile\|spawn" .
# Then check if user input is in the args array without -- separator

CVSS Guidance

  • Unauthenticated RCE: CRITICAL 9.8
  • Authenticated RCE (low-priv): HIGH 8.8
  • Argument injection (limited impact): HIGH 7.5-8.1
  • Requires specific config/setup: HIGH 7.2 (AC:H)

References

  • Sinks — Shell execution sinks by language
  • False Positive Indicators — When this isn't exploitable
  • PoC Skeleton — Command injection PoC template

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.