Skip to content

GHSA-qcpp-8x79-hhp3 CVE-2026-68518 PYSEC-2026-3668

Glances has a command injection bypass of action-template sanitizer via cross-field shell-operator reconstruction

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.17%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 6.73% 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

The Glances action system lets an administrator configure shell commands that run when a monitoring threshold is crossed. The command is a Mustache template whose variables are filled with runtime stat fields such as a process name, a container name or a filesystem mount point. Those fields are attacker-influenceable: a local, unprivileged user who starts a process (or a container) controls its name and command line. The rendered command is executed by secure_popen(), which interprets &&, | and > as chaining / pipe / redirection operators.

glances/actions.py defends against this with _sanitize_mustache_dict(), which strips those operators from each individual template value before rendering. The sanitization is applied per field, but the operators are reconstructed across the boundary of two adjacent template variables after Mustache rendering. When an action template concatenates two unescaped variables ({{{a}}}{{{b}}} or {{&a}}{{&b}}) and the attacker makes the first value end with & and the second begin with &, the rendered command contains a real &&, and secure_popen() executes the injected command. The single-& in each value passes the per-field filter untouched.

Affected versions

glances <= 4.5.5 (verified against the published PyPI release 4.5.5, the latest at the time of writing; glances.__version__ == "4.5.5"). The per-field sanitizer _sanitize_mustache_dict() is present and active in this release. Not patched in any released version.

Privilege required

Two roles are involved:

  • A local, unprivileged user (or a container the attacker can name) supplies the attacker-controlled stat values (process/container name, mount point, etc.). This is the same trust boundary the action-template command-injection class already recognises: the attacker controls the process name, not the configuration.
  • An administrator has configured an action whose command template concatenates two unescaped Mustache variables with no separating character ({{{name}}}{{{cmdline}}}). Unescaped Mustache ({{{ }}} / {{& }}) is a documented Chevron feature and is the natural choice when the operator wants a value that contains shell-significant characters to reach the command verbatim.

No network access to the target host is required beyond the ability to run a process (or start a named container) on it.

Vulnerable code (file:line)

glances/actions.py:25-46 — the per-field sanitizer:

# glances/actions.py:25
_SHELL_OPERATORS = ('&&', '|', '>>', '>')

def _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict):
    """Return a copy of mustache_dict with shell operators replaced by spaces."""
    if not mustache_dict:
        return mustache_dict
    safe = {}
    for k, v in mustache_dict.items():
        if isinstance(v, str):
            for op in _SHELL_OPERATORS:
                v = v.replace(op, ' ')          # per-field only
            safe[k] = v
        else:
            safe[k] = v
    return safe

glances/actions.py:100-111 — sanitize-then-render-then-execute:

# glances/actions.py:100
for cmd in commands:
    if chevron_tag:
        safe_dict = _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict)
        cmd_full = chevron.render(cmd, safe_dict)   # concatenation happens here
    else:
        cmd_full = cmd
    ret = secure_popen(cmd_full)                    # operators interpreted

Root cause

_sanitize_mustache_dict() removes &&, |, >>, > from each value in isolation. It does not remove a lone &, because a single & is not one of the listed operators. When two values are rendered next to each other by chevron.render(), a trailing & from the first value and a leading & from the second value join into a literal && in cmd_full. secure_popen() then cmd.split('&&') and runs the second half as a separate subprocess.Popen (shell=False) process. The same reconstruction works for > written as two adjacent > characters split across the boundary (...> + >... and the >>/> stripping is per field), and the sanitizer's own choice to sanitize before, rather than after, rendering is the defect.

This is an incomplete fix of the action-template command-injection issue (CVE-2026-32608 / GHSA-vcv2-q258-wrg7): _sanitize_mustache_dict() closes the single-field case but not the cross-field-reconstruction case. The correct place to enforce the operator ban is on the fully rendered command string (or by never letting template-variable data introduce operators), not on the pre-render values one at a time.

Chevron HTML-escapes &, <, >, " inside standard double-brace {{ }} sections, so double-brace templates neutralise the && reconstruction. The reconstruction is reachable specifically through unescaped variables ({{{ }}} / {{& }}), which is why the per-field sanitizer is the sole remaining control on that path.

Reachability / How input reaches sink

  1. A local unprivileged user starts a process (or a container) whose name ends with & and whose cmdline begins with & <command> (both are stored verbatim in the plugin stat item).
  2. When the plugin crosses a warning / critical threshold, glances/plugins/plugin/model.py calls self.actions.run with the full stat item passed as the mustache_dict argument.
  3. GlancesActions.run sanitizes each value with _sanitize_mustache_dict() (each keeps its single &), then chevron.render() concatenates the two adjacent unescaped variables, producing a literal && in the command string.
  4. secure_popen(cmd_full) splits on && and runs the attacker's segment as a separate subprocess.Popen(shell=False) process.

The trust boundary crossed is process-name / container-name → shell operator, exactly the boundary the sanitizer was introduced to close.

Reproduction (end-to-end, against pinned version glances==4.5.5)

# 1. Install the latest published release into a clean venv
python3.13 -m venv gv
./gv/bin/pip install "glances==4.5.5"

# 2. Run the reproducer, which drives the real
#    glances.actions.GlancesActions.run() pipeline exactly as
#    glances/plugins/plugin/model.py invokes it on an alert.
./gv/bin/python repro.py

repro.py:

import os, sys, time
sys.argv = ['glances']
from glances.actions import GlancesActions

MARK = "/tmp/glances_crossfield_pwned"
NEG  = MARK + "_neg"
for f in (MARK, NEG):
    try: os.remove(f)
    except FileNotFoundError: pass

class Args:
    time = 0
ga = GlancesActions(args=Args())

# A processlist stat item; a local low-privilege user controls both 'name' and
# 'cmdline' by spawning a process (the established GHSA-vcv2 threat model).
# 'name' ends with '&', 'cmdline' begins with '&'  ->  '&&' forms across the boundary.
item = {'name': 'evilproc&', 'cmdline': '& touch %s' % MARK,
        'pid': 1337, 'cpu_percent': 99.0, 'key': 'pid'}

# NEGATIVE CONTROL: the same values under an ESCAPED double-brace template are
# neutralised by chevron HTML-escaping '&' -> '&amp;'.
neg_item = dict(item); neg_item['cmdline'] = '& touch %s' % NEG
ga.status.clear(); ga.start_timer._start = time.time() - 999
ga.run("pl", "CRITICAL", ["logger p={{name}}{{cmdline}}"], repeat=True, mustache_dict=neg_item)
time.sleep(0.3)
print("NEGATIVE CONTROL (escaped {{name}}{{cmdline}}):",
      "INJECTED" if os.path.exists(NEG) else "blocked (expected)")

# POSITIVE: an UNESCAPED template with two adjacent variables. Per-field
# _sanitize_mustache_dict leaves each single '&'; the '&&' operator is
# reconstructed after chevron.render, then split by secure_popen.
ga.status.clear(); ga.start_timer._start = time.time() - 999
ga.run("pl2", "CRITICAL", ["logger p={{{name}}}{{{cmdline}}}"], repeat=True, mustache_dict=item)
time.sleep(0.5)
print("POSITIVE (unescaped {{{name}}}{{{cmdline}}}):",
      "INJECTED - 'touch' executed" if os.path.exists(MARK) else "blocked")

Captured output (glances 4.5.5, Python 3.13, x86_64 Linux):

NEGATIVE CONTROL (escaped {{name}}{{cmdline}}): blocked (expected)
POSITIVE (unescaped {{{name}}}{{{cmdline}}}): INJECTED - 'touch' executed

The negative control confirms that the same attacker values under a standard double-brace template are blocked (chevron escapes &). The positive case shows the injected touch executing when the template uses two adjacent unescaped variables: the file /tmp/glances_crossfield_pwned is created by the injected command, not by the intended logger action.

Impact

  • Arbitrary command execution as the OS user running Glances (frequently root on monitored hosts) whenever an operator uses an unescaped, adjacent-variable action template and an attacker controls two neighbouring stat fields.
  • The same reconstruction reaches secure_popen()'s file-redirection (>) and pipe (|) handling, allowing arbitrary file write and output piping in addition to command chaining.
  • The bypass defeats the dedicated _sanitize_mustache_dict() control that was added specifically to stop attacker-controlled stat values from injecting shell operators.

Suggested fix

Enforce the operator ban on the rendered command string that comes from template-variable expansion, rather than on the pre-render values in isolation. One approach that mirrors the existing helper: render each variable, then reject / neutralise operators in the concatenated result, or strip lone &/redirection characters that originate from variable data.

def _sanitize_mustache_dict(mustache_dict):
    if not mustache_dict:
        return mustache_dict
    safe = {}
    for k, v in mustache_dict.items():
        if isinstance(v, str):
            # Neutralise every shell-significant character that secure_popen
            # can interpret, including a lone '&' that could pair with an
            # adjacent variable to reconstruct '&&'.
            for ch in ('&', '|', '>', '<'):
                v = v.replace(ch, ' ')
            safe[k] = v
        else:
            safe[k] = v
    return safe

Neutralising the single & (and the single > / |) in each value removes the cross-field reconstruction because no operator character survives on either side of a variable boundary. Alternatively, sanitize cmd_full after chevron.render(), or pass the template-derived data as secure_popen(..., allow_operators=False) when the command originates from stat-field substitution.

Credit

Reported by tonghuaroot.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
glances
< 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 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
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-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-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