Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-32477 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Deno Deno. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 27th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-30286
Vulnerability Data
Deno is a JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly runtime with secure defaults. By using ANSI escape sequences and a race between `libc::tcflush(0, libc::TCIFLUSH)` and reading standard input, it's possible to manipulate the permission prompt and force it to allow an unsafe…
more
action regardless of the user input. Some ANSI escape sequences act as a info request to the master terminal emulator and the terminal emulator sends back the reply in the PTY channel. standard streams also use this channel to send and get data. For example the `\033[6n` sequence requests the current cursor position. These sequences allow us to append data to the standard input of Deno. This vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass Deno permission policy. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.42.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V10.4.2V10.4.5V15.1.3V15.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
Maintaining separate execution domains for each process structurally eliminates unintended concurrent access to the same shared resources.
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's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
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).
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
Secure SDLC mandates concurrency controls and synchronization primitives that directly prevent race conditions.
Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture principles require proper synchronization and resource isolation, addressing the root cause of CWE-362.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe concurrent access patterns and mandate atomic operations or locks.
Change management reduces introduction of concurrency bugs during updates, yet does not address the weakness itself.