GHSA-28xh-wpgr-7fm8

Command Injection in open

Critical npm

Severity: Critical; The publisher's own rating, not a CVSS score
Exploit chance (EPSS): —; No score published
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Fix: 6.0.0; Upgrade open to this version or later

Description

Versions of open before 6.0.0 are vulnerable to command injection when unsanitized user input is passed in.

The package does come with the following warning in the readme:

The same care should be taken when calling open as if you were calling child_process.exec directly. If it is an executable it will run in a new shell.

Recommendation

open is now the deprecated opn package. Upgrading to the latest version is likely have unwanted effects since it now has a very different API but will prevent this vulnerability.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
open	`< 6.0.0`	`6.0.0`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

open npm → `6.0.0`

npm

npm install open@6.0.0

yarn

yarn add open@6.0.0

pnpm

pnpm add open@6.0.0

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.

References

Timeline

Jun 20, 2019 Published
Aug 31, 2020 Last updated by the source

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

Is this in your code?

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