CVE-2024-5672
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA high privileged remote attacker can execute arbitrary system commands via GET requests due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThis is an OS Command Injection vulnerability where a high-privileged attacker can execute arbitrary system commands by sending specially crafted GET requests. The root cause is improper neutralization of special elements (likely shell metacharacters) in user-supplied input that gets passed to OS command execution functions.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify applications processing GET requestsInventory all web applications or services in your environment that accept and process GET request parametersAffected if the application handles GET parameters and has OS command execution functionality
-
Locate command execution code pathsSearch application source code or configuration for patterns where GET parameters (request.queryString, request.getParameter, $_GET, @RequestParam) are passed to OS command execution functions such as exec(), system(), shell_exec(), Runtime.exec(), ProcessBuilder, or similarAffected if GET parameter values flow directly into OS command execution without proper sanitization
-
Inspect input validation on GET parametersReview application code for input validation, allowlisting, or escaping mechanisms applied to GET parameters before they reach system callsAffected if no input validation or sanitization exists on GET parameters used in command execution
-
Check for unsafe shell invocation patternsExamine code for patterns like string concatenation or string formatting that inject GET parameters into shell commands (e.g., 'exec(' + param + ')', system('command ' + requestParam))Affected if GET parameters are concatenated into shell commands without parameterized APIs or escaping
-
Review logging for suspicious GET requestsExamine HTTP access logs for GET requests containing shell metacharacters like ; | & $ ` ( ) { } [ ] < > " ' \n \r to or from your web applicationAffected if GET requests with shell metacharacters are logged reaching endpoints that perform system operations
Your environment is affected if any application processes GET parameters and passes them unsanitized to OS command execution functions.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataRemediate by implementing strict input validation, using parameterized APIs instead of shell commands, or employing safe library functions that avoid shell interpretation. Identify all GET parameters that flow into system calls and ensure proper escaping or use allowlists.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-5672 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-5672 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data