dbcve.org
OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2009-20011

CRITICAL · 10.0 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-08-30
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
ContentKeeper Web Appliance (now maintained by Impero Software) versions prior to 125.10 are vulnerable to remote command execution due to insecure handling of file uploads via the mimencode CGI utility. The vulnerability allows unauthenticated attackers to upload and execute arbitrary scripts as the Apache user. Additionally, the exploit can optionally escalate privileges by abusing insecure PATH usage in the benetool binary, resulting in root-level access if successful.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

The ContentKeeper Web Appliance versions prior to 125.10 contains a critical remote command execution vulnerability in its mimencode CGI utility, allowing unauthenticated attackers to upload and execute arbitrary scripts as the Apache user. Additionally, the benetool binary contains an insecure PATH manipulation flaw enabling privilege escalation to root.

MitigationUpgrade ContentKeeper Web Appliance to version 125.10 or later. If the appliance cannot be upgraded due to end-of-life status, implement network-level compensating controls (strict firewall rules, network segmentation) to restrict access to the CGI interface and monitor for indicators of compromise.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify ContentKeeper Web Appliance version
    Access the appliance admin interface or run 'show version'/'get system info' via CLI to retrieve the installed ContentKeeper version number
    Affected if The installed version is lower than 125.10 (e.g., 125.0, 124.x, earlier releases)
  2. Verify mimencode CGI utility presence
    Locate the mimencode CGI script on the web server (typically in /cgi-bin/ or similar CGI directory) using file system access or HTTP enumeration
    Affected if The mimencode CGI script exists and is accessible without authentication on the network
  3. Confirm benetool binary exists
    Check for the existence of the 'benetool' binary on the file system (common paths: /usr/local/bin/, /opt/, or within the ContentKeeper installation directory)
    Affected if The benetool binary is present and executable by the Apache or web server user
  4. Check web service user context
    Verify the CGI scripts (including mimencode) run as the Apache user or a low-privilege web service account
    Affected if The CGI scripts execute under a user account with limited privileges (non-root), but the benetool binary can be manipulated for privilege escalation

A system is affected if it runs ContentKeeper Web Appliance version prior to 125.10 AND has the mimencode CGI accessible or the benetool binary present on the filesystem.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade ContentKeeper Web Appliance to version 125.10 or later. If the appliance cannot be upgraded due to end-of-life status, implement network-level compensating controls (strict firewall rules, network segmentation) to restrict access to the CGI interface and monitor for indicators of compromise.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

ContentKeeper Web Appliance version 125.10 or later (contact Impero Software for current supported release)

  1. Identify the current installed version of ContentKeeper Web Appliance
  2. Contact Impero Software (current vendor) to obtain the upgrade to version 125.10 or later
  3. Verify the upgrade package integrity using vendor-provided checksums prior to installation
  4. Apply the upgrade in accordance with vendor documentation
  5. After upgrade, verify that the mimencode CGI handler properly sanitizes file uploads
  6. Verify that the benetool binary no longer has insecure PATH handling by reviewing configurations
  7. Confirm the Apache user cannot execute privileged commands and that privilege escalation to root is no longer possible
Caveat As this is a legacy appliance upgrade from 2009, compatibility with current systems should be verified with the vendor; a fresh installation or migration may be required

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,940
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,304.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-20011 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2009-20011 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data