CWE · MITRE source
CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
When creating commands using interpolation into a string, developers may assume that only the arguments/options that they specify will be processed. This assumption may be even stronger when the programmer has encoded the command in a way that prevents separate commands from being provided maliciously, e.g. in the case of shell metacharacters. When constructing the command, the developer may use whitespace or other delimiters that are required to separate arguments when the command. However, if an attacker can provide an untrusted input that contains argument-separating delimiters, then the resulting command will have more arguments than intended by the developer. The attacker may then be able to change the behavior of the command. Depending on the functionality supported by the extraneous arguments, this may have security-relevant consequences.
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: partial · 2 mapping(s) from 1 framework(s): CAPEC 2 (partial)
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.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI-assisted
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
| No NIST controls proposed yet. | |||
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2016-10033 KEV UPD | 9.9 | 9.8 | 0.9971 | 2016-12-30 |
CVE-2018-17456 UPD | 9.9 | 9.8 | 0.9736 | 2018-10-06 |
CVE-2026-24061 KEV UPD | 9.9 | 9.8 | 0.9788 | 2026-01-21 |
CVE-2021-33564 UPD | 9.8 | 9.8 | 0.7214 | 2021-05-29 |
CVE-2022-23221 UPD | 9.7 | 9.8 | 0.6477 | 2022-01-19 |
CVE-2022-36804 KEV UPD | 9.2 | 8.8 | 0.9908 | 2022-08-25 |
CVE-2020-21224 UPD | 9.1 | 9.8 | 0.3875 | 2021-02-22 |
CVE-2024-24576 UPD | 8.6 | 10.0 | 0.2034 | 2024-04-09 |
CVE-2018-19518 UPD | 8.3 | 7.5 | 0.9523 | 2018-11-25 |
CVE-2019-6453 UPD | 8.3 | 8.1 | 0.5429 | 2019-02-18 |
CVE-2007-0882 UPD | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.9785 | 2007-02-12 |
CVE-2021-3401 UPD | 8.2 | 9.8 | 0.1048 | 2021-02-04 |
CVE-2021-26937 UPD | 8.2 | 9.8 | 0.0915 | 2021-02-09 |
CVE-2022-25766 UPD | 8.2 | 8.8 | 0.3389 | 2022-03-21 |
CVE-2021-1531 UPD | 8.1 | 8.8 | 0.3049 | 2021-05-22 |
CVE-2024-41710 KEV UPD | 8.1 | 7.2 | 0.4165 | 2024-08-12 |
CVE-2020-13699 UPD | 8.0 | 8.8 | 0.2579 | 2020-07-29 |
CVE-2019-3463 UPD | 7.9 | 9.8 | 0.0487 | 2019-02-06 |
CVE-2020-15692 UPD | 7.9 | 9.8 | 0.0420 | 2020-08-14 |
CVE-2022-24437 UPD | 7.9 | 9.8 | 0.0398 | 2022-05-01 |
CVE-2019-10746 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0351 | 2019-08-23 |
CVE-2019-12148 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0353 | 2019-10-22 |
CVE-2020-5599 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0349 | 2020-07-07 |
CVE-2020-5648 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0347 | 2020-11-06 |
CVE-2021-31909 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0321 | 2021-05-11 |