CVE-2021-22899
A command injection vulnerability exists in Pulse Connect Secure before 9.1R11.4 allows a remote authenticated attacker to perform remote code execution via…
High
Known exploited
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 22.91%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 97.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Nov 3, 2021
- Weakness
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Ivanti Pulse Connect Secure Command Injection Vulnerability (Ivanti Pulse Connect Secure). Required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions. Due for U.S. federal agencies by May 3, 2022.
Description
A command injection vulnerability exists in Pulse Connect Secure before 9.1R11.4 allows a remote authenticated attacker to perform remote code execution via Windows Resource Profiles Feature
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-587h-7wmj-h5pm launch-editor: `fs.existsSync()` existence check can be bypassed on Windows | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| CVE-2026-96951 Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in Windows Shell allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security… | High Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| CVE-2026-105134 A flaw has been found in Ahsay AhsayCBS up to 9.15.2.69/10.3.4.44. | Critical Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-jf24-8g2h-2wg7 LibreNMS Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via AboutController | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-c9fv-cgmm-2wg7 LibreNMS Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution by Signal Alert Transportation module | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-6qc3-v8fv-fv9j Apache Ranger has a Command Injection vulnerability | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-956x-8gvw-wg5v GitPython: command injection via unguarded Git options in `Repo.archive()`, `git.ls_remote()`, and arbitrary file overwrite via `Repo.iter_commits()` / `Repo.blame()` | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-qf6p-p7ww-cwr9 Gogs vulnerable to RCE via git rebase --exec argument injection in pull request merge | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor