GHSA-m9p2-fxp5-v3fp RUSTSEC-2026-0136
Diesel: Command injection in Diesel's implementation of `COPY FROM`/`COPY TO`
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
- Fix
2.3.8- Upgrade diesel to this version or later
Description
Diesel allows users to configure various options for PostgreSQL's COPY FROM and COPY TO statements. These configurations are partially provided as strings or characters.
Diesel did not check if any these user-provided options contain a quote character ', which can lead to the injection of additional options in the current COPY FROM/COPY TO statement.
This vulnerability affects any user of COPY FROM/COPY TO that passes user-provided input to any of the affected functions. It can result in modifications of options in the current statement, but it is not possible inject additional statements.
Mitigation
The preferred mitigation to the outlined problem is to update to Diesel version 2.3.8 or newer, which includes fixes for the problem.
Resolution
Diesel now correctly escapes any quotes contained in the provided arguments.
Affected versions
crates.io
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.
diesel crates.io → 2.3.8
- cargo
cargo update -p diesel --precise 2.3.8
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
Weakness
CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
- Architecture and Design: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
- 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.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-ggxf-9f6j-w742 Diesel has possible use after free when deserializing a SQLite database via `SqliteConnection::deserialize_readonly_database` | Medium | Also affects diesel |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0135 Unsound transmute while debug/display printing batch Insert statements in Diesel's SQLite backend | Not rated yet | Also affects diesel |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0134 Unsound access to padding bytes while serializing date/time values using the Mysql backend | Not rated yet | Also affects diesel |
| GHSA-q8x8-jrhj-fh9p Diesel: Possible unaligned data access for implementations of `SqliteAggregate` | Medium | Also affects diesel |
| GHSA-h5x4-m2qf-r4f2 Diesel's SQLite backend has possible UTF-8 corruption | High | Also affects diesel |
| GHSA-wq9x-qwcq-mmgf Diesel vulnerable to Binary Protocol Misinterpretation caused by Truncating or Overflowing Casts | High | Also affects diesel |
| RUSTSEC-2021-0037 Fix a use-after-free bug in diesels Sqlite backend | Critical | Also affects diesel |
| CVE-2026-113708 Argo CD is a declarative, GitOps continuous delivery tool for Kubernetes. | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-88 |
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