Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-4253 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Gradio Project Gradio. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 25% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Machine Learning Libraries; 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-32805
Vulnerability Data
A command injection vulnerability exists in the gradio-app/gradio repository, specifically within the 'test-functional.yml' workflow. The vulnerability arises due to improper neutralization of special elements used in a command, allowing for unauthorized modification of the base repository or secrets exfiltration. The…
more
issue affects versions up to and including '@gradio/video@0.6.12'. The flaw is present in the workflow's handling of GitHub context information, where it echoes the full name of the head repository, the head branch, and the workflow reference without adequate sanitization. This could potentially lead to the exfiltration of sensitive secrets such as 'GITHUB_TOKEN', 'COMMENT_TOKEN', and 'CHROMATIC_PROJECT_TOKEN'.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Machine Learning Libraries
- Risk Domain
- Supply Chain and Deployment
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Gradio is a platform/library for creating web-based UIs and demos for machine learning models, commonly used in AI/ML workflows, and the vulnerability is in its repository's CI/CD workflow; Huntr advisory confirms AI/ML context.
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
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.
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.