Skip to content

GHSA-73wf-9vmv-5pv9 CVE-2026-62982 PYSEC-2026-3666

Glances: Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-32608: action-template sanitizer is bypassed by nested stat values (process 'cmdline') → OS command injection

High PyPI
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.20%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Fix
4.5.6
Upgrade glances to this version or later

Description

Summary

CVE-2026-32608 ("Command Injection via Process Names in Action Command Templates") was fixed (commit 5680a5d) by adding _sanitize_mustache_dict, which replaces the shell operators &&, |, >>, > with spaces in the values rendered into action command templates.

The sanitizer only processes top-level string values (if isinstance(v, str)). Attacker-controlled nested values — most notably a process's cmdline, which Glances exposes as a list and which is fully attacker-controlled via argv — are passed through unsanitized. Because the Mustache renderer (chevron) does not HTML-escape the pipe character |, a | embedded in such a nested value survives into the rendered command and is then interpreted by secure_popen (which still interprets &&/|/> by default, allow_operators=True), re-introducing the exact command injection the CVE was meant to close.

Details

The fix (glances/actions.py):

_SHELL_OPERATORS = ('&&', '|', '>>', '>')                     # line 25

def _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict):                   # line 28
    ...
    for k, v in mustache_dict.items():
        if isinstance(v, str):                                # line 40  <-- ONLY top-level strings
            for op in _SHELL_OPERATORS:
                v = v.replace(op, ' ')
            safe[k] = v
        else:
            safe[k] = v                                       # nested list/dict passed VERBATIM
    return safe

Render + sink (glances/actions.py:104-111):

safe_dict = _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict)
cmd_full  = chevron.render(cmd, safe_dict)                    # chevron does NOT escape '|'
...
ret = secure_popen(cmd_full)                                 # secure_popen(cmd, allow_operators=True)

secure_popen (glances/secure.py:17, default allow_operators=True) splits the command by &&, then __secure_popen interprets | (pipe to a new process) and > (write output to a file). A surviving | therefore launches an attacker-named second process.

The attacker-controlled nested value — cmdline. The action mustache_dict is the per-item plugin stat (glances/plugins/plugin/model.py:931 mustache_dict = item, then :943 self.actions.run(..., mustache_dict=mustache_dict)). For the processlist plugin, each item contains cmdline, a list of the process arguments, set by the attacker simply by launching a process with chosen argv. The sanitizer's isinstance(v, str) test skips the list, so its elements reach chevron.render unmodified.

Why the operator survives render. chevron/Mustache HTML-escapes & < > " ' for {{var}} (so > and && are neutralized) but does not escape |. A pipe in the (unsanitized) nested value therefore reaches secure_popen intact and is interpreted.

Parent-fix attribution (verified against the real diff of commit 5680a5d / CVE-2026-32608): that fix added exactly _SHELL_OPERATORS, _sanitize_mustache_dict, and the _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict) call — and the sanitizer's docstring explicitly claims to neutralize "user-controllable data (process names, container names, mount points, etc.)". It does so only for top-level strings; the list/dict case (else: safe[k] = v) was left unsanitized. This is therefore a genuine incomplete-fix gap, not a re-report of the patched (top-level string) vector.

Proof of Concept

Lab-only, harmless (touches a marker file; non-destructive). Runs the real glances chain (_sanitize_mustache_dict → chevron.render → secure_popen) — see poc/glances_nested_mustache_poc.py.

Attacker process argv (the only attacker input): cmdline = ['x', '|touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker', '#']. Admin action template (renders the offending process's cmdline): echo ALERT {{#cmdline}}{{.}} {{/cmdline}}.

Observed (confirmed on develop HEAD 92156d0/4.5.6 and verified code-identical on v4.5.5):

cmdline after sanitizer : ['x', '|touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker', '#']   <- pipe survives
cmd_full -> secure_popen : 'echo ALERT x |touch /tmp/glances_poc_marker # '
[VULNERABLE] marker created -> /tmp/glances_poc_marker  (command injection executed)

Replacing touch /tmp/... with any command yields arbitrary execution in the Glances process context.

Preconditions (stated honestly)

  • A configured alert action whose command template renders a nested stat field (e.g. the process cmdline via a {{#cmdline}}…{{/cmdline}} section). Templates that render only flat string fields ({{name}}, {{value}}, {{username}}, {{mnt_point}}) are not affected — those values are sanitized.
  • Glances running with privilege to enumerate the attacker's process (typically root in server/agent monitoring deployments) → privilege boundary crossed (S:C).

Impact

A local unprivileged user gains OS command execution in the Glances security context (commonly root) — the same impact and threat model as the parent CVE-2026-32608, re-enabled for any action template that renders a nested stat field. The injection is reliable once the (admin-set) template references such a field.

Suggested fix

  • Sanitize recursively — apply the operator stripping to strings inside lists and dicts, not only top-level str values.
  • And/or build the templated action as an argument list and run it via secure_popen(..., allow_operators=False) / shell=False without operator interpretation.
  • And/or also strip the pipe | (and treat all _SHELL_OPERATORS) on every rendered string regardless of nesting; do not rely on Mustache HTML-escaping (it does not escape |).

Credit

Ta Duc Thien

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
glances
>= 4.5.2, < 4.5.6
4.5.6

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 → 4.5.6

pip
pip install --upgrade "glances>=4.5.6"
poetry
poetry add "glances>=4.5.6"
uv
uv add "glances>=4.5.6"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS 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.
  • 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: For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
  • 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.
  • 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. For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
  • Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
  • Implementation: If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
  • 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 constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would ne
  • 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.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • 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 OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
  • Operation: Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
  • 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.
  • 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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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-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-3vwc-qwhc-3mj7
Glances has arbitrary file write and command execution via `secure_popen` redirection and chaining operators in AMP command configuration
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
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