Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-52308 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Github Cli. Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 45% 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The vulnerability is a command injection flaw (CWE-77) in the GitHub CLI versions 2.6.1 and earlier. It affects the `gh codespace ssh` and `gh codespace logs` commands, which retrieve untrusted SSH connection details—including the remote username—from an SSH server running inside a devcontainer and pass those details directly to the local ssh binary without validation.
An attacker who controls a third-party devcontainer can run a malicious SSH server that supplies a crafted remote username containing ssh options such as `-oProxyCommand="echo hacked" #`. When a victim later invokes either of the affected commands against that codespace, the injected arguments cause the local ssh client to execute arbitrary code on the user’s workstation. The attack requires the victim to connect to the attacker’s codespace and has a CVSS score of 8.0.
The official advisory GHSA-p2h2-3vg9-4p87 states that the issue is fixed in GitHub CLI 2.62.0 by validating the remote username before it is used in ssh command construction. The EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0753 with no observed rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-3287
Vulnerability Data
The GitHub CLI version 2.6.1 and earlier are vulnerable to remote code execution through a malicious codespace SSH server when using `gh codespace ssh` or `gh codespace logs` commands. This has been patched in the cli v2.62.0. Developers connect to…
more
remote codespaces through an SSH server running within the devcontainer, which is generally provided through the [default devcontainer image]( https://docs.github.com/en/codespaces/setting-up-your-project-for-codespaces/adding-a-dev-container-... https://docs.github.com/en/codespaces/setting-up-your-project-for-codespaces/adding-a-dev-container-configuration/introduction-to-dev-containers#using-the-default-dev-container-configuration) . GitHub CLI [retrieves SSH connection details]( https://github.com/cli/cli/blob/30066b0042d0c5928d959e288144300cb28196c9/internal/codespaces/rpc/inv... https://github.com/cli/cli/blob/30066b0042d0c5928d959e288144300cb28196c9/internal/codespaces/rpc/invoker.go#L230-L244 ), such as remote username, which is used in [executing `ssh` commands]( https://github.com/cli/cli/blob/e356c69a6f0125cfaac782c35acf77314f18908d/pkg/cmd/codespace/ssh.go#L2... https://github.com/cli/cli/blob/e356c69a6f0125cfaac782c35acf77314f18908d/pkg/cmd/codespace/ssh.go#L263 ) for `gh codespace ssh` or `gh codespace logs` commands. This exploit occurs when a malicious third-party devcontainer contains a modified SSH server that injects `ssh` arguments within the SSH connection details. `gh codespace ssh` and `gh codespace logs` commands could execute arbitrary code on the user's workstation if the remote username contains something like `-oProxyCommand="echo hacked" #`. The `-oProxyCommand` flag causes `ssh` to execute the provided command while `#` shell comment causes any other `ssh` arguments to be ignored. In `2.62.0`, the remote username information is being validated before being used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.