Code RadarLOCAL SAST GATE
AccountGitHubInstall Radar

Detect command injection before merge.

See how command injection fits local review, which evidence Code Radar produces, where coverage ends, and how trusted findings move into CI.

Check this risk locallyReview detection evidence
radar scan . --quick

What command injection means here.

The command injection rule identifies review patterns that can create exploitable behavior or hide material maintenance risk, then returns the affected location, severity, confidence, and remediation context.

Rule reference

Evidence to inspect

Verify the input scope, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

CriterionEvidence to inspectBoundary
Input scopeSelected files, configuration, scan mode, and enabled rules.Only included paths and configured checks are evaluated.
Finding detailFile, line, rule ID, severity, explanation, and repair direction.Illustrative output is not a result from your repository.
Workflow handoffLocal result, report format, agent context, and optional CI signal.Enable exports or CI only when the workflow needs them.
Decision fitUse the same criteria on a real repository before choosing a plan or tool.No universal winner or guaranteed outcome is claimed.
Rule reference

Check this risk locally

Verify the input scope, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

Check this risk locally

The problem this page helps clarify

The useful question is where command injection changes the review loop: what enters the scan, who acts on a finding, and which evidence moves forward. Detect untrusted input reaching shell execution instead of an argument-safe API.

  • Audience: Developers and reviewers deciding how to handle command injection findings before merge.
  • Focus: Detect untrusted input reaching shell execution instead of an argument-safe API.
  • Review question: What does command injection cover in practice?

Coverage and concrete signals

For command injection, inspect the concrete scope below instead of relying on a category label. Trace untrusted text into shell execution and verify that the replacement passes fixed arguments through an argument-safe API.

  • Focus: Detect untrusted input reaching shell execution instead of an argument-safe API.
  • Workflow: Rule ID: RADAR-SEC-CMDI
  • Coverage and concrete signals: RADAR-SEC-CMDI, unsafe pattern, safer pattern, Source security
FocusExact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.Boundary
Detect untrusted input reaching shell execution instead of an argument-safe API.Trace untrusted text into shell execution and verify that the replacement passes fixed arguments through an argument-safe API.A fixed command with validated arguments may be safe; confirm the executable and argument boundary, then test metacharacters and rejected input.

Risky pattern / Safer pattern

command injection: A useful result must be explainable to a developer and portable to the next review surface. Inspect the concrete evidence below before changing team policy.

Risky patternSafer pattern
exec(`convert ${userFile}`);execFile("convert", [validatedFile]);

From local signal to shared gate.

command injection: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. Detect untrusted input reaching shell execution instead of an argument-safe API.

StepCommand or actionDecision
1Run a quick local scanIs the signal useful?
2Inspect and repair findingsIs the fix specific and reproducible?
3Export portable evidenceDoes the reviewer need SARIF, JSON, or HTML?
4Promote the trusted threshold to CIWhich severity should block a pull request?
radar scan . --quick
radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high

Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.

command injection: A useful result must be explainable to a developer and portable to the next review surface. Inspect the concrete evidence below before changing team policy. Trace untrusted text into shell execution and verify that the replacement passes fixed arguments through an argument-safe API.

  • Rule ID: RADAR-SEC-CMDI
  • Exact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.
  • Terminal output, SARIF, JSON, or HTML artifacts generated from the same finding set.
  • Source stays in the workspace or CI runner where the scan executes.

Good fit and limits

Use command injection when Developers and reviewers deciding how to handle command injection findings before merge. Keep the boundary explicit: A fixed command with validated arguments may be safe; confirm the executable and argument boundary, then test metacharacters and rejected input.

Run the local proof before adopting a shared gate.

  • Good fit: Developers and reviewers deciding how to handle command injection findings before merge.
  • Not a fit / do not overreach: A fixed command with validated arguments may be safe; confirm the executable and argument boundary, then test metacharacters and rejected input.

Questions to verify before rollout

These questions keep the decision tied to observable evidence rather than a broad product promise.

What does command injection cover in practice?

command injection: The practical scope is Detect untrusted input reaching shell execution instead of an argument-safe API.. Start with the listed entities or files and confirm the result on representative code.

Which evidence should I inspect for command injection?

command injection: Inspect Trace untrusted text into shell execution and verify that the replacement passes fixed arguments through an argument-safe API. Keep the source location, rule or comparison context, and exported artifact together.

What should I not infer from command injection?

command injection: Do not infer universal coverage. A fixed command with validated arguments may be safe; confirm the executable and argument boundary, then test metacharacters and rejected input. Use the relevant comparison or workflow page to test the boundary before changing policy.

What should I try first for command injection?

command injection: Start with a local run, review one real finding, then choose the linked report, agent, CI, or trust workflow that matches the next decision.

Feature: security scannerChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Feature: sastChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Docs: rulesChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.
Rule reference

Start with the problem you need to solve.

Open page →
Local SASTLocal SAST for Developers and CI

Developer-first static application security testing that scans source locally, emits SARIF for GitHub code scanning, and gives coding agents deterministic fix context.

ProofSee sample report

Inspect the fields and formats in a sample finding.

InstallInstall Radar

Run a local scan on a real repository.

Validate the workflow on your own code.

Start with one local scan, inspect the evidence, and expand to reports, agents, or CI only when the signal is useful.

Check this risk locallyReview detection evidence