Cyber Resilience

CWE · MITRE source

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

Abstraction: Base · CVEs in our corpus: 6,446

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

This weakness can lead to a vulnerability in environments in which the attacker does not have direct access to the operating system, such as in web applications. Alternately, if the weakness occurs in a privileged program, it could allow the attacker to specify commands that normally would not be accessible, or to call alternate commands with privileges that the attacker does not have. The problem is exacerbated if the compromised process does not follow the principle of least privilege, because the attacker-controlled commands may run with special system privileges that increases the amount of damage. There are at least two subtypes of OS command injection: From a weakness standpoint, these variants represent distinct programmer errors. In the first variant, the programmer clearly intends that input from untrusted parties will be part of the arguments in the command to be executed. In the second variant, the programmer does not intend for the command to be accessible to any untrusted party, but the programmer probably has not accounted for alternate ways in which malicious attackers can provide input.

Last updated: 22 August 2026 20:22 UTC

Cumulative inbound coverage

How completely the frameworks we cross-walk collectively cover this — the verdict is the strongest single mapping (overlapping partials are not summed); breadth shows the corroboration behind it.

Collective: full · 7 mapping(s) from 2 framework(s): CAPEC 5 (full) · CSF 2.0 2 (mostly)

See the full cumulative-coverage rollup →

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

This weakness contributes to A05:2025 Injection.

Control responseHuman-reviewed

Answering this weakness across the control lifecycle, from our framework cross-walks.

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53 / CSF Protect)
  • SC-27 Platform-independent Applications
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation
  • PR.PS-02
Detect
Catch it (CSF Detect / Respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

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

NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (2)AI-assisted

Control Title Family Why it addresses this CWE
SC-27Platform-independent ApplicationsSCPlatform-independent apps typically execute inside a managed runtime or sandbox that restricts direct OS command execution, reducing the ability to exploit OS command injection.
SI-10Information Input ValidationSIValidates inputs to block special elements that would alter OS command execution.

Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority

CVE Risk CVSS EPSS Published
CVE-2022-20708 KEV 10.010.00.14862022-02-10
CVE-2022-31137 10.010.00.90392022-07-08
CVE-2024-1212 KEV 10.010.00.95392024-02-21
CVE-2024-2389 10.010.00.93042024-04-02
CVE-2024-45519 KEV 10.010.00.99912024-10-02
CVE-2024-51378 KEV 10.010.00.94732024-10-29
CVE-2024-50603 KEV 10.010.00.98552025-01-08
CVE-2026-10520 KEV 10.010.00.99902026-06-09
CVE-2026-16812 KEV10.010.00.00882026-07-27
CVE-2014-6271 KEV 9.99.81.00002014-09-24
CVE-2014-7169 KEV 9.99.80.99942014-09-25
CVE-2017-6077 KEV 9.99.80.68202017-02-22
CVE-2017-9828 9.99.80.82462017-06-23
CVE-2017-17105 9.99.80.84562017-12-19
CVE-2017-17411 9.99.80.87932017-12-21
CVE-2018-6530 KEV 9.99.80.96682018-03-06
CVE-2018-7890 9.99.80.78822018-03-08
CVE-2018-10562 KEV 9.99.80.99942018-05-04
CVE-2018-11138 KEV 9.99.80.92062018-05-31
CVE-2018-10660 9.99.80.82282018-06-26
CVE-2018-14417 9.99.80.89582018-08-04
CVE-2018-14933 KEV 9.99.80.94882018-08-04
CVE-2018-14558 KEV 9.99.80.08672018-10-30
CVE-2018-16167 9.99.80.74742019-01-09
CVE-2019-9194 9.99.80.96672019-02-26