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

Use “Detect command injection before merge.” as the scope for this decision: verify the input, 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

Check this risk locally

Coverage and concrete signals

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.
  • Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.: Trace untrusted text into shell execution and verify that the replacement passes fixed arguments through an argument-safe API.
  • Boundary: A fixed command with validated arguments may be safe; confirm the executable and argument boundary, then test metacharacters and rejected input.
  • Rule ID: RADAR-SEC-CMDI
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.

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. Trace untrusted text into shell execution and verify that the replacement passes fixed arguments through 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
Official source

Primary sources

Rule reference

Start with the problem you need to solve.

Open page →
Local SASTLocal SAST for Developers and CIProofSee sample reportInstallInstall Radar

Validate the workflow on your own code.

Apply this page’s evidence to one real repository. For “Detect command injection before merge.”, confirm which finding is produced, whether the proposed next step is reproducible, and where local scanning, reports, agents, or CI should stop or expand.

Check this risk locallyReview detection evidence