Skip to content

GHSA-prj9-97mp-mwh2 CVE-2026-53541 GO-2026-5552

OliveTin has Unvalidated `ot_`-prefixed Arguments that Bypass Input Filtering

Medium Go
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.38%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
Fix
0.0.0-20260531214440-ebffd9f040f7
Upgrade github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin to this version or later

Description

Description

The filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with ot_ to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (ot_executionTrackingId and ot_username) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other ot_-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified.

These bypassed arguments are:

  1. Not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so ot_-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely.
  2. Set as environment variables — via buildEnv(), with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command.
  3. Included in the template context — available as .Arguments.ot_* in template rendering.

Affected Code

Filter bypass — service/internal/executor/executor.go (lines 728–731):

func keepArgument(name string, definedNames map[string]struct{}) bool {
    _, ok := definedNames[name]
    return ok || strings.HasPrefix(name, "ot_")
}

System args only override two keys — service/internal/executor/executor.go (lines 742–745):

func injectSystemArgs(req *ExecutionRequest) {
    req.Arguments["ot_executionTrackingId"] = req.TrackingID
    req.Arguments["ot_username"] = req.AuthenticatedUser.Username
}

Any other ot_-prefixed argument (e.g., ot_malicious) survives both functions.

Unvalidated values become environment variables — service/internal/executor/executor.go (lines 867–882):

func buildEnv(args map[string]string) []string {
    ret := append(os.Environ(), "OLIVETIN=1")
    for k, v := range args {
        varName := fmt.Sprintf("%v", strings.TrimSpace(strings.ToUpper(k)))
        if varName == "" { continue }
        ret = append(ret, fmt.Sprintf("%v=%v", varName, v))
    }
    return ret
}

The value v is never validated. It can contain newlines, shell metacharacters, null bytes, or any arbitrary data.

Proof of Concept

An attacker sends a StartAction request with extra ot_-prefixed arguments:

{
  "bindingId": "<any-action-id>",
  "arguments": [
    { "name": "ot_custom_var", "value": "arbitrary unvalidated content \n with newlines" },
    { "name": "ot_another",    "value": "$(whoami)" }
  ]
}

These arguments:

  • Pass through filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly (the ot_ prefix exempts them).
  • Are never type-checked (not in the action's argument definitions).
  • Become environment variables OT_CUSTOM_VAR and OT_ANOTHER in the executed command's environment.
  • Are available in the template rendering context as .Arguments.ot_custom_var and .Arguments.ot_another.

Impact

  • Environment variable pollution — attacker can set arbitrary environment variables (with OT_ uppercased prefix) in the execution environment of any action they can trigger. Scripts or programs that read custom environment variables could be influenced.
  • Potential for secondary exploitation — if any executed script or command reads OT_-prefixed environment variables, the unvalidated content could cause unexpected behavior.
  • Template context pollution — although Go's text/template does not recursively evaluate data values (mitigating direct template injection), the extra arguments are accessible in the template context and could interact unexpectedly with custom template logic.

Suggested Fix

Remove the ot_ prefix exception from keepArgument, or restrict it to only the two known system arguments:

var systemArgs = map[string]struct{}{
    "ot_executionTrackingId": {},
    "ot_username":            {},
}

func keepArgument(name string, definedNames map[string]struct{}) bool {
    _, isDefined := definedNames[name]
    _, isSystem := systemArgs[name]
    return isDefined || isSystem
}

Discovery Methodology

Both vulnerabilities were identified through manual source code review of the OliveTin repository, focusing on:

  • Input validation boundaries (API request fields flowing into file system operations and execution contexts)
  • Argument filtering and type-checking logic in the executor
  • File path construction in the log persistence feature

No automated scanners or fuzzing tools were used. The review was conducted against the current main branch source code.


Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
< 0.0.0-20260531214440-ebffd9f040f7
0.0.0-20260531214440-ebffd9f040f7

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.

github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin Go → 0.0.0-20260531214440-ebffd9f040f7

go
go get github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin@v0.0.0-20260531214440-ebffd9f040f7 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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.
  • 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • 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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-jm28-2wcr-qf3h
OliveTin: StartActionAndWait Endpoints Bypass `logs` Permission and Return Action Output
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xc5w-4v5w-7x65
OliveTin OS Command Injection via Custom regex: Argument Type Bypassing Shell Safety Check
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xpxj-f2fm-rqch
OliveTin: Unauthenticated DoS via OAuth2 State Memory Exhaustion (Unbounded Map Growth)
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-f637-w7p2-m7fx
OliveTin: ValidateArgumentType API Endpoint's Missing Authentication Allows Action and Argument Enumeration
Low Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-7fq5-7wr8-rjwj
OliveTin has a Concurrent Template Parsing Race Condition which Leads to Cross-Request Command Contamination
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xx6g-43w2-9g6g
OliveTin's email argument makes compliance harder, enables log injection
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-228v-wc5r-j8m7
OliveTin Vulnerable to Unauthorized Action Output Disclosure via EventStream
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-364q-w7vh-vhpc
OliveTin's unsafe parsing of UniqueTrackingId can be used to write files
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
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