CVE-2011-10007VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jun 2025

CVE-2011-10007: RCLAMP File::Find::Rule · OS Command Injection

Affects RCLAMP File::Find::RuleSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RCLAMP File::Find::Rule	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Avoid using vulnerable versions of File::Find::Rule (0.34 and earlier). Upgrade to a patched or newer version once available. 2. If upgrading is not immediately possible, modify scripts to avoid using the two-argument form of open() with untrusted input; use the three-argument form of open() to separate the mode from the filename, preventing command injection. 3. Sanitize and validate all filenames before processing, rejecting or escaping special characters that could be interpreted as shell metacharacters. 4. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on directories scanned by File::Find::Rule to prevent introduction of malicious filenames. 5. Use application whitelisting and runtime protection to detect and block unexpected command executions. 6. Employ intrusion detection systems (IDS) and endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to monitor for suspicious activity related to Perl script execution. 7. Educate developers and system administrators about safe Perl coding practices, especially regarding file handling and command execution. 8. Restrict the execution context of Perl scripts to least privilege to limit the impact of potential exploitation.

Description

File::Find::Rule through 0.34 for Perl is vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution when `grep()` encounters a crafted filename. A file handle is opened with the 2 argument form of `open()` allowing an attacker controlled filename to provide the MODE parameter to `open()`, turning the filename into a command to be executed. Example: $ mkdir /tmp/poc; echo > "/tmp/poc/|id" $ perl -MFile::Find::Rule \ -E 'File::Find::Rule->grep("foo")->in("/tmp/poc")' uid=1000(user) gid=1000(user) groups=1000(user),100(users)

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on Perl scripts and modules for system administration, automation, or software development. Arbitrary code execution can lead to unauthorized access, data theft, system disruption, and lateral movement within networks. Confidentiality is at risk as attackers can execute commands to exfiltrate sensitive data. Integrity is compromised because attackers can modify or delete files and system configurations. Availability is also threatened as attackers could disrupt services or deploy ransomware. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure, which often use Perl for legacy or automation tasks, are particularly vulnerable. The lack of patches means that organizations must rely on mitigating controls to prevent exploitation. Additionally, since the vulnerability requires user interaction (processing malicious filenames), environments that automatically scan or index files from external sources, such as file servers, mail servers, or web applications, are at higher risk. The threat could also be leveraged in supply chain attacks if malicious files are introduced into trusted environments.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 04:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats