Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-43402 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Rust-Lang Rust. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 49% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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-2024-40268
Vulnerability Data
Rust is a programming language. The fix for CVE-2024-24576, where `std::process::Command` incorrectly escaped arguments when invoking batch files on Windows, was incomplete. Prior to Rust version 1.81.0, it was possible to bypass the fix when the batch file name had…
more
trailing whitespace or periods (which are ignored and stripped by Windows). To determine whether to apply the `cmd.exe` escaping rules, the original fix for the vulnerability checked whether the command name ended with `.bat` or `.cmd`. At the time that seemed enough, as we refuse to invoke batch scripts with no file extension. Windows removes trailing whitespace and periods when parsing file paths. For example, `.bat. .` is interpreted by Windows as `.bat`, but the original fix didn't check for that. Affected users who are using Rust 1.77.2 or greater can remove the trailing whitespace (ASCII 0x20) and trailing periods (ASCII 0x2E) from the batch file name to bypass the incomplete fix and enable the mitigations. Users are affected if their code or one of their dependencies invoke a batch script on Windows with trailing whitespace or trailing periods in the name, and pass untrusted arguments to it. Rust 1.81.0 will update the standard library to apply the CVE-2024-24576 mitigations to all batch files invocations, regardless of the trailing chars in the file name.
- CWE(s)
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.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.
Secure coding standards explicitly require proper neutralization of command arguments, directly eliminating CWE-88.
Change management can catch unsafe command patterns during reviews but is not a direct mitigation.