Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. Prior to 7.3.2, The fix for CVE-2026-39337 is incomplete. The pre-authentication remote code execution vulnerability in ChurchCRM's setup wizard via unsanitized DB_PASSWORD remains fully exploitable This vulnerability is fixed in 7.3.2.Show less

The The Advanced Custom Fields: Extended plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary shortcode execution in all versions up to, and including, 0.9.2.3. This is due to the software allowing users to execute an action that does not properly validate a value before running do_shortcode. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes.Show less

Scramble generates API documentation for Laravel project. From 0.13.2 to before 0.13.22, when documentation endpoints are publicly accessible and validation rules reference user-controlled input, request supplied data may be evaluated during documentation generation, leading to execution of arbitrary PHP code in the application context. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.13.22.Show less

Wing FTP Server before 8.1.3 contains an authenticated remote code execution vulnerability in the session serialization mechanism that allows authenticated administrators to inject arbitrary Lua code through the domain admin mydirectory field. Attackers can exploit unsafe serialization of session values into Lua source code without proper escaping of closing delimiters, causing the injected code to be executed when the poisoned session is loaded via loadfile().Show less

SPIP versions prior to 4.4.14 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the public space that is limited to certain nginx configurations, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code in the context of the web server. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability through specific nginx configuration scenarios to achieve code execution, and this issue is not mitigated by the SPIP security screen.Show less

SPIP versions prior to 4.4.14 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the private space that allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in the context of the web server. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to achieve code execution that bypasses the SPIP security screen protections.Show less

The llm CLI tool thru 0.27.1 contains a critical code injection vulnerability via its --functions command-line argument. This argument is intended to allow users to provide custom Python function definitions. However, the tool directly executes the provided code using the unsafe exec() function without any sanitization, sandboxing, or security restrictions. An attacker can exploit this by crafting a malicious llm command with arbitrary Python code in the --functions argument and using social engineering to trick a victim into running it. This leads to arbitrary code execution on the victim's system, potentially granting the attacker full control.Show less

Guardrails AI thru 0.6.7 contains a code injection vulnerability (CWE-94) in its Hub package installation mechanism. When installing validator packages via guardrails hub install, the system retrieves a manifest from the Guardrails Hub and dynamically executes a script specified in the post_install field. The script path is constructed from untrusted manifest data and executed without proper validation or sanitization, allowing remote code execution. An attacker who can publish malicious packages to the Hub can inject arbitrary code that will be executed on any system where a victim installs the malicious package.Show less

Cognee thru v0.4.0 contains a critical remote code execution vulnerability in its notebook cell execution API endpoint. The endpoint is designed to execute arbitrary Python code provided by the user, but it does so using the unsafe exec() function without any sandboxing, validation, or security controls. An attacker can exploit this by sending a specially crafted POST request containing malicious Python code to the execution endpoint. This leads to arbitrary code execution on the Cognee server with the privileges of the server process, allowing complete compromise of the system.Show less

The Adversarial Robustness Toolbox (ART) thru 1.20.1 contains a command-line argument injection vulnerability in its Kubeflow component (robustness_evaluation_fgsm_pytorch.py). The script uses the unsafe eval() function to parse string values provided via the --clip_values and --input_shape command-line arguments. This allows an attacker to inject arbitrary Python code into these arguments, which will be executed when eval() is called. The vulnerability can be exploited remotely if an attacker can control these arguments (e.g., through pipeline configuration or automated scripts), leading to arbitrary code execution on the system running the ART evaluation.Show less

The Adversarial Robustness Toolbox (ART) thru 1.20.1 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in its Kubeflow component. The robustness evaluation function for PyTorch models uses the unsafe eval() function to dynamically evaluate user-supplied strings for the LossFn and Optimizer parameters without any sanitization or security restrictions. An attacker can exploit this by providing a specially crafted string that contains arbitrary Python code, which will be executed when eval() is called, leading to complete compromise of the system running the ART evaluation.Show less

The superduper project thru v0.10.0 contains a critical remote code execution vulnerability in its query parsing component. The _parse_op_part() function in query.py uses the unsafe eval() function to dynamically evaluate user-supplied query operands without proper sanitization or restriction. Although the function attempts to limit the execution context by providing a restricted global namespace, it does not block access to dangerous built-in functions. A remote attacker can exploit this by submitting a specially crafted query string containing Python code that imports modules (e.g., os) and executes arbitrary system commands, leading to complete compromise of the server.Show less

PySyft (Syft Datasite/Server) versions 0.9.5 and earlier are vulnerable to remote code execution due to insufficient validation and sandboxing of user-submitted code. The system allows low-privileged users to submit Python functions (via @sy.syft_function()) for remote execution on the server. While a code approval mechanism exists, the submitted code undergoes no security checks for dangerous operations (e.g., file access, command execution). Once approved, the code is executed within the server process using exec() and eval() functions without proper isolation. A remote attacker can leverage this to execute arbitrary Python code on the server, leading to complete compromise of the server environment.Show less

The _load_model() function in the neural_magic_training.py script of the optimate project in commit a6d302f912b481c94370811af6b11402f51d377f (2024-07-21) allows arbitrary code execution. When a user supplies a directory path via the --model command-line argument, the function reads a module.py file from that directory and executes its contents directly using Python's exec() function. This design does not validate or sanitize the file's content, allowing an attacker who controls the input directory to execute arbitrary Python code in the context of the process running the script.Show less

Due to a Code Injection vulnerability in SAP Application Server ABAP for SAP NetWeaver and ABAP Platform, an authenticated attacker could send specially crafted inputs to the application. If processed by the application, this input could be delivered to users subscribed to the channel and result in execution. Successful exploitation could enable the attacker to execute arbitrary code for other users, resulting in a low impact on the integrity, with no impact to the confidentiality and availability of the system.Show less

WWBN AVideo is an open source video platform. In versions up to and including 29.0, the server-side mitigation for the YPTSocket autoEvalCodeOnHTML eval sink (from CVE-2026-40911) only strips the payload when it sits under $json['msg'], but the relay function msgToResourceId() selects the outbound message from $msg['json'] before $msg['msg']. An unauthenticated attacker can obtain a WebSocket token from plugin/YPTSocket/getWebSocket.json.php, connect to the WebSocket server, and send a message with autoEvalCodeOnHTML nested under a top-level json field — the strip branch is skipped, the relay delivers the payload verbatim to any logged-in user identified by to_users_id, and the client script runs it through eval(). Commit 9f3006f9a89a34daa67a83c6ad35f450cb91fcce contains an updated fix.Show less