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: 04 July 2026 00:28 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 · 10 mapping(s) from 4 framework(s): ATT&CK 4 (mostly) · CAPEC 4 (partial) · ASVS 5.0 1 (full) · OWASP-Web 1 (full)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A05:2025 Injection.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
| No NIST controls proposed yet. | |||
MITRE ATT&CK techniques this weakness enables
Our own two-way CWE↔ATT&CK cross-walk — a direct mapping with no public source (the CWE→CAPEC→ATT&CK chain leaves most top weaknesses, incl. XSS and SQLi, mapped to nothing). Drafted by Grok and spot-checked by Claude Opus 4.8.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial).
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2016-10033 KEV | 10.0 | 9.8 | 0.9971 | 2016-12-30 |
CVE-2022-36804 KEV | 10.0 | 8.8 | 0.9917 | 2022-08-25 |
CVE-2024-41710 KEV | 10.0 | 7.2 | 0.4161 | 2024-08-12 |
CVE-2026-24061 KEV | 10.0 | 9.8 | 0.9887 | 2026-01-21 |
CVE-2007-0882 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.9785 | 2007-02-12 |
CVE-2018-17456 | 8.0 | 9.8 | 0.9736 | 2018-10-06 |
CVE-2018-19518 | 8.0 | 7.5 | 0.9523 | 2018-11-25 |
CVE-2019-6453 | 8.0 | 8.1 | 0.7178 | 2019-02-18 |
CVE-2020-5792 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 0.6097 | 2020-10-20 |
CVE-2021-33564 | 8.0 | 9.8 | 0.7225 | 2021-05-29 |
CVE-2022-23221 | 8.0 | 9.8 | 0.6477 | 2022-01-19 |
CVE-2017-1001003 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0169 | 2017-11-27 |
CVE-2017-14591 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 0.0231 | 2017-11-29 |
CVE-2018-10992 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0150 | 2018-05-11 |
CVE-2018-13385 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0221 | 2018-07-24 |
CVE-2018-3856 | 7.0 | 9.9 | 0.0344 | 2018-08-23 |
CVE-2019-3463 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0487 | 2019-02-06 |
CVE-2019-9794 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0177 | 2019-04-26 |
CVE-2019-10746 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0351 | 2019-08-23 |
CVE-2019-12147 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0260 | 2019-10-22 |
CVE-2019-12148 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0350 | 2019-10-22 |
CVE-2020-5599 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0349 | 2020-07-07 |
CVE-2020-15692 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0420 | 2020-08-14 |
CVE-2020-5648 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0343 | 2020-11-06 |
CVE-2021-3401 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.1048 | 2021-02-04 |