GHSA-xcgp-r7r8-2hc9 CVE-2024-1540
Gradio's CI vulnerable to Command Injection
- Severity
- 8.6 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.98%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 80.50% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- Fix
4.18.0- Upgrade gradio to this version or later
Description
A command injection vulnerability exists in the deploy+test-visual.yml workflow of the gradio-app/gradio repository, due to improper neutralization of special elements used in a command. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute unauthorized commands, potentially leading to unauthorized modification of the base repository or secrets exfiltration. The issue arises from the unsafe handling of GitHub context information within a an action definition which is evaluated and substituted before script execution. Remediation involves setting untrusted input values to intermediate environment variables to prevent direct influence on script generation.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| gradio | < 4.18.0 |
4.18.0 |
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.
gradio PyPI → 4.18.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "gradio>=4.18.0"- poetry
poetry add "gradio>=4.18.0"- uv
uv add "gradio>=4.18.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.0 8.6
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended 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.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- 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.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Withdrawn
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-j36p-7w88-g82j Gradio FileExplorer preprocess path traversal allows files outside root_dir to reach callbacks | High | Also affects gradio |
| GHSA-6655-8ph2-63j3 Gradio: Audio cache key ignores metadata when saving numpy audio outputs | Low | Also affects gradio |
| GHSA-7hp7-4p35-3cx2 Gradio contains a cookie injection vulnerability | Medium | Also affects gradio |
| GHSA-jmh7-g254-2cq9 Gradio has SSRF via Malicious `proxy_url` Injection in `gr.load()` Config Processing | High | Also affects gradio |
| GHSA-pfjf-5gxr-995x Gradio has an Open Redirect in its OAuth Flow | Medium | Also affects gradio |
| GHSA-39mp-8hj3-5c49 Gradio is Vulnerable to Absolute Path Traversal on Windows with Python 3.13+ | High | Also affects gradio |
| GHSA-h3h8-3v2v-rg7m Gradio: Mocked OAuth Login Exposes Server Credentials and Uses Hardcoded Session Secret | Medium | Also affects gradio |
| GHSA-8jw3-6x8j-v96g Gradio Allows Unauthorized File Copy via Path Manipulation | High | Also affects gradio |
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