Skip to content

GHSA-w5ff-2mjc-4phc CVE-2026-33319

AVideo has an OS Command Injection via Unescaped URL in LinkedIn Video Upload Shell Command

High Packagist
Severity
5.9 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.98% 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 uploadVideoToLinkedIn() method in the SocialMediaPublisher plugin constructs a shell command by directly interpolating an upload URL received from LinkedIn's API response, without sanitization via escapeshellarg(). If an attacker can influence the LinkedIn API response (via MITM, compromised OAuth token, or API compromise), they can inject arbitrary OS commands that execute as the web server user.

Details

The vulnerability exists in plugin/SocialMediaPublisher/Objects/SocialUploader.php.

The initializeLinkedInUploadSession() method (line 649) sends a POST request to https://api.linkedin.com/rest/videos?action=initializeUpload and parses the JSON response at line 693:

// SocialUploader.php:693
$responseArray = json_decode($response, true);

The parsed uploadInstructions array is iterated at line 532, and each uploadUrl is passed to uploadVideoToLinkedIn() at line 542:

// SocialUploader.php:542
$uploadResponse = self::uploadVideoToLinkedIn($instruction['uploadUrl'], $tmpFile);

The uploadVideoToLinkedIn() method (line 711) constructs a shell command by directly concatenating both $uploadUrl and $filePath into a string passed to exec():

// SocialUploader.php:713-720
$shellCmd = 'curl -v -H "Content-Type:application/octet-stream" --upload-file "' .
    $filePath . '" "' .
    $uploadUrl . '" 2>&1';

_error_log("Upload Video Shell Command:\n" . $shellCmd);

exec($shellCmd, $o);

Neither $uploadUrl nor $filePath is sanitized with escapeshellarg(). A malicious URL such as https://uploads.linkedin.local" ; id ; echo " would break out of the quoted string and execute arbitrary commands.

The $uploadUrl originates from LinkedIn's API response — a trusted third-party source over HTTPS — so exploitation requires compromising that response (MITM at CA level, compromised OAuth token leading to attacker-controlled API responses, or LinkedIn API compromise). This makes the attack complexity high, but the missing sanitization is a defense-in-depth failure that could become critical if the trust boundary is ever violated.

PoC

This vulnerability requires manipulating the LinkedIn API response. A simulated proof-of-concept using a local proxy:

Step 1: Set up a proxy that intercepts the LinkedIn API response and replaces the uploadUrl field:

{
  "value": {
    "uploadInstructions": [
      {
        "uploadUrl": "https://example.com\" ; id > /tmp/pwned ; echo \"",
        "firstByte": 0,
        "lastByte": 1024
      }
    ],
    "uploadToken": "token123",
    "video": "urn:li:video:123"
  }
}

Step 2: The resulting shell command becomes:

curl -v -H "Content-Type:application/octet-stream" --upload-file "/tmp/tmpfile" "https://uploads.linkedin.local" ; id > /tmp/pwned ; echo "" 2>&1

Step 3: The id command executes as the web server user, writing output to /tmp/pwned.

Step 4: Verify:

cat /tmp/pwned
# uid=33(www-data) gid=33(www-data) groups=33(www-data)

Impact

  • Remote Code Execution: If the LinkedIn API response is compromised, an attacker gains arbitrary command execution as the web server user (www-data).
  • Confidentiality: Full read access to application source code, configuration files (including database credentials), and any data accessible to the web server process.
  • Integrity: Ability to modify application files, inject backdoors, or alter database records.
  • Practical risk is low due to the high attack complexity — exploitation requires compromising a trusted HTTPS API response from LinkedIn. This is primarily a defense-in-depth issue.

Recommended Fix

Sanitize both $uploadUrl and $filePath with escapeshellarg() before interpolation into the shell command. Alternatively, replace the exec() call with PHP's native cURL functions (which are already used elsewhere in the same class):

Option 1 — Minimal fix with escapeshellarg():

// plugin/SocialMediaPublisher/Objects/SocialUploader.php:711-715
static function uploadVideoToLinkedIn($uploadUrl, $filePath)
{
    $shellCmd = 'curl -v -H "Content-Type:application/octet-stream" --upload-file ' .
        escapeshellarg($filePath) . ' ' .
        escapeshellarg($uploadUrl) . ' 2>&1';

Option 2 — Replace shell exec with native PHP cURL (preferred):

static function uploadVideoToLinkedIn($uploadUrl, $filePath)
{
    $ch = curl_init();
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_URL, $uploadUrl);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER, ['Content-Type: application/octet-stream']);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_PUT, true);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_INFILE, fopen($filePath, 'r'));
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_INFILESIZE, filesize($filePath));
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, true);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_HEADER, true);
    curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_VERBOSE, true);

    $response = curl_exec($ch);
    $headerSize = curl_getinfo($ch, CURLINFO_HEADER_SIZE);
    $headers = substr($response, 0, $headerSize);
    curl_close($ch);

    // Extract ETag from response headers
    $matches = [];
    preg_match('/(etag:)(\s?)(.*)(\n)/i', $headers, $matches);
    $etag = isset($matches[3]) ? trim($matches[3]) : null;

    // ... rest of function
}

Option 2 is strongly preferred as it eliminates the shell execution entirely, removing the injection surface and aligning with the PHP cURL usage already present in initializeLinkedInUploadSession() on line 664.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
wwbn/avideo
<= 25.0
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 3.1 5.9

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

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