Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-3121

Command Injection in Lollms 5.9.0

Published
24 June 2024
Modified
21 November 2024
CVSS Score v3.1 3.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0045 37th percentile
Risk Priority 30 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-3121 is a low-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Lollms Lollms. Its CVSS base score is 3.3 (Low).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as LLM Application Platforms; in the Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the create_conda_env function of the parisneo/lollms repository, version 5.9.0. The vulnerability arises from the use of shell=True in the subprocess.Popen function, which allows an attacker to inject arbitrary commands by manipulating the env_name…

more

and python_version parameters. This issue could lead to a serious security breach as demonstrated by the ability to execute the 'whoami' command among potentially other harmful commands.

CWE(s)

AI Security AnalysisAI

AI Category
LLM Application Platforms
Risk Domain
Supply Chain and Deployment
OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
None mapped
Classification Reason
The vulnerability is in the parisneo/lollms repository, which is an open-source platform (LOLLMS WebUI) for running and managing large language models as an AI assistant interface, fitting the Enterprise AI Assistants category. It was reported on a bug bounty platform specifically for AI/ML vulnerabilities.

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.002 AppleScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse AppleScript for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-1976Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2026-31233Shared CWE-94
CVE-2024-58351Shared CWE-94
CVE-2026-22793Shared CWE-94
CVE-2024-41468Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2024-6507Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2026-24887Shared CWE-78, CWE-94
CVE-2026-54769Shared CWE-94
CVE-2026-4276Shared CWE-94
CVE-2026-23733Shared CWE-94

Affected Assets

lollms
lollms
5.9.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V15.2.5
  • V1.3.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.

Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.

Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.

Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.

Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.

Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).

PR.DS-10 none match
prevents

PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.

prevents

Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.

none

Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.

References