# CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

**KEV-linked**

> As of 2026-10-05, CWE-88 (Argument Injection) underlies 8 CVEs tracked by Threadlinqs, 1 of them in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and is cited by 15 tracked threats.

**Last updated:** 2026-10-05

## What is CWE-88?

The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.

When creating commands using interpolation into a string, developers may assume that only the arguments/options that they specify will be processed. This assumption may be even stronger when the programmer has encoded the command in a way that prevents separate commands from being provided maliciously, e.g. in the case of shell metacharacters. When constructing the command, the developer may use whitespace or other delimiters that are required to separate arguments when the command. However, if an attacker can provide an untrusted input that contains argument-separating delimiters, then the resulting command will have more arguments than intended by the developer. The attacker may then be able to change the behavior of the command. Depending on the functionality supported by the extraneous arguments, this may have security-relevant consequences.

CWE-88 is a base-level weakness in MITRE’s Common Weakness Enumeration. Applicable platforms: Language: Not Language-Specific; Language: PHP; Technology: Not Technology-Specific.

_Source: [MITRE CWE](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/88.html) (CWE-88 definition, reproduced verbatim). Counts and linkage below are Threadlinqs data._

## Consequences

- **Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Other** — Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Alter Execution Logic, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data. An attacker could include arguments that allow unintended commands or code to be executed, allow sensitive data to be read or modified or could cause other unintended behavior.

_Source: MITRE CWE, common consequences._

## How CWE-88 is exploited in the wild

Threadlinqs maps 8 CVEs to CWE-88, published between 2026-01-21 and 2026-09-14. 1 is listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, the authoritative record of exploitation in the wild. By CVSS v3 severity the set splits into 2 critical, 4 high, 1 medium. The highest EPSS score in the set is 88.0% (CVE-2026-24061), the modelled probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. 15 tracked threats reference CWE-88 directly or through a CVE it covers; the most recent is “CISA Adds Two Actively Exploited KEVs: SharePoint Code Injection (CVE-2026-65660) and Mikrotik RouterOS Auth Bypass (CVE-2026-67279)” (2026-09-26). Affected products concentrate in Debian (1), FreeRDP (1), Gnu (1), among 9 vendors in total.

## Vulnerabilities (CVEs)

All 8 CVEs mapped to CWE-88, CISA KEV first, then by CVSS score.

- [CVE-2026-24061](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2026-24061) — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 88.0% · published 2026-01-21
- [CVE-2026-52891](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2026-52891) — CVSS 9.9 critical · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-07-15
- [CVE-2026-64624](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2026-64624) — CVSS 7.8 high · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-07-20
- [CVE-2026-90894](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2026-90894) — CVSS 7.8 high · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-09-14
- [CVE-2026-49373](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2026-49373) — CVSS 7.1 high · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-05-29
- [CVE-2026-81529](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2026-81529) — CVSS 7.1 high · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-08-27
- [CVE-2025-40948](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2025-40948) — CVSS 6.8 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-05-12
- [CVE-2026-86060](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cve/CVE-2026-86060) — EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-05

## Affected vendors

- [Debian](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/vendors/debian) — 1 CVE
- **FreeRDP** — 1 CVE
- [Gnu](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/vendors/gnu) — 1 CVE
- [JetBrains](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/vendors/jetbrains) — 1 CVE
- [Mikrotik](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/vendors/mikrotik) — 1 CVE
- [MongoDB](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/vendors/mongodb) — 1 CVE
- **Parallels** — 1 CVE
- [Siemens](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/vendors/siemens) — 1 CVE
- [wekan](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/vendors/wekan) — 1 CVE

## Threat activity

15 tracked threats cite CWE-88:

- [CISA Adds Two Actively Exploited KEVs: SharePoint Code Injection (CVE-2026-65660) and Mikrotik RouterOS Auth Bypass (CVE-2026-67279)](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-2669) — CRITICAL · 2026-09-26
- [cPanel/WHM CalDAV/CardDAV and WP Toolkit Flaws Enable Cross-Account Access and Root Privilege Escalation (CVE-2026-68490, CVE-2026-87899, CVE-2026-87900)](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-2636) — CRITICAL · 2026-09-23
- [CVE-2026-90894 ("ParaShells"): Parallels Desktop for Mac Local Privilege Escalation via Appliance Extract Argument Injection](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-2536) — HIGH · 2026-09-16
- [CVE-2026-51990: One-Click RCE in Tencent Sogou Input Method Exploited by UNC3569 to Deploy GrayRabbit Malware](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-2474) — CRITICAL · 2026-09-13
- [Attackers Hijack MikroTik Routers Through Internet-Exposed SSH Without Authentication (MikroTrick)](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-2345) — CRITICAL · 2026-09-06
- [Critical Ubuntu Pro Client Vulnerability Enables Root Code Execution via Contract Server Spoofing (CVE-2026-11386)](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1564) — CRITICAL · 2026-07-20
- [CVE-2026-32746: Pre-Auth BSS Buffer Overflow in GNU inetutils telnetd LINEMODE SLC Handling](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1515) — HIGH · 2026-07-19
- [Siemens Ruggedcom ROX II Three-Stage Zero-Day Exploit Chain (CVE-2025-40948, CVE-2025-40947, CVE-2025-40949)](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1442) — CRITICAL · 2026-07-17
- [Unpatched Cursor IDE 0-Day: Malicious git.exe in Repository Root Enables Arbitrary Code Execution on Windows (CWE-427)](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1377) — HIGH · 2026-07-15
- [Cryptojacking Campaign Exploiting Gogs (CVE-2026-52806) and Argo Workflows (CVE-2026-42296/CVE-2026-42295) Targets Managed Kubernetes Clusters](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1230) — HIGH · 2026-07-11
- [Multiple JetBrains Product Vulnerabilities: Account Takeover, Privilege Escalation, and RCE Across Hub, YouTrack, IntelliJ IDEA, Kotlin, GoLand, and TeamCity](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1069) — HIGH · 2026-07-02
- [CVE-2025-67038: Critical Code Injection in Lantronix EDS5000 Series Under Active Exploitation](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1019) — CRITICAL · 2026-06-30
- [GuardFall: Shell-Injection Guardrail Bypass Exposes Open-Source AI Coding Agents to Supply-Chain Attacks](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-1131) — HIGH · 2026-06-30
- [Gogs Authenticated RCE via Argument Injection in git rebase --exec (Unpatched, CVSSv4 9.4, GHSA-qf6p-p7ww-cwr9)](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-0615) — CRITICAL · 2026-05-28
- [SolarWinds Access Rights Manager (ARM) Systemic Deserialization RCE — 17 CVEs, 6 Unauth SYSTEM RCE, Access Control Paradox](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/threat/TL-2026-0016) — CRITICAL · 2026-02-02

## Mitigations

- **Implementation / Parameterization**: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
- **Architecture and Design / Input Validation**: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
- **Implementation / Input Validation**: 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…
- **Implementation**: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- **Implementation**: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- **Implementation**: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
- **Implementation**: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- **Testing**: Use automated static analysis tools that target this type of weakness. Many modern techniques use data flow analysis to minimize the number of false positives. This is not a perfect solution, since 100% accuracy and coverage are not feasible.
- **Testing**: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

_Source: MITRE CWE, potential mitigations._

## Detection methods (MITRE CWE)

- **Automated Static Analysis** (effectiveness: High): Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

_Source: MITRE CWE, detection methods. Threadlinqs detection rules for the threats above are Blue tier and higher._

## Related weaknesses

- [CWE-77 Command Injection](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cwe/CWE-77)
- [CWE-74 Injection](https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cwe/CWE-74)

Canonical: https://intel.threadlinqs.com/cwe/CWE-88
Source definition: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/88.html
Detection rules and IOCs for threats exploiting CWE-88 via the Threadlinqs MCP server (Purple tier): https://intel.threadlinqs.com/mcp