Skip to content

elFinder: Command injection in resize background color parameter when using ImageMagick CLI

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 17, 2026 in Studio-42/elFinder • Updated Apr 17, 2026

Package

composer studio-42/elfinder (Composer)

Affected versions

< 2.1.67

Patched versions

2.1.67

Description

Severity

High
bg can be injected into shell command construction, leading to possible RCE in affected configurations.

Summary

elFinder contains a command injection vulnerability in the resize command.

The bg (background color) parameter is accepted from user input and passed through image resize/rotate processing. In configurations that use the ImageMagick CLI backend, this value is incorporated into shell command strings without sufficient escaping. An attacker able to invoke the resize command with a crafted bg value may achieve arbitrary command execution as the web server process user.

This issue affects configurations where:

  • the resize command is enabled,
  • image processing uses the ImageMagick CLI backend, and
  • the vulnerable code paths are reachable.

Impact

An attacker may execute arbitrary OS commands with the privileges of the web server process.

Impact depends on server configuration, enabled commands, backend image library selection, and surrounding deployment controls.

Affected versions

Affected: all versions before <FIXED_VERSION>
Patched: <FIXED_VERSION>

Details

The vulnerable flow is:

  1. The resize command accepts the bg parameter from the request.
  2. The parameter is passed into volume resize handling.
  3. In ImageMagick CLI code paths, the value is interpolated into shell command strings.
  4. Because the value is not safely constrained and escaped, shell metacharacters may be injected.

The issue was addressed by:

  • validating bg against a strict allowlist of supported color formats, and
  • safely escaping the value before it is passed into CLI command construction.

Workarounds

Possible mitigations for users who cannot upgrade immediately:

  • disable the resize command if not required,
  • avoid using the ImageMagick CLI backend for image processing,
  • restrict access to trusted users only.

Upgrading to the patched release is strongly recommended.

Credits

Thanks to Lin, WeiChi for the responsible disclosure.

References

@nao-pon nao-pon published to Studio-42/elFinder Apr 17, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 17, 2026
Reviewed Apr 17, 2026
Last updated Apr 17, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Weaknesses

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-8q4h-8crm-5cvc

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.