CVE-2025-10622
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in Red Hat Satellite (Foreman component). This vulnerability allows an authenticated user with edit_settings permissions to achieve arbitrary command execution on the underlying operating system via insufficient server-side validation of command whitelisting.
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 confidenceIn Red Hat Satellite's Foreman component, an authenticated user with edit_settings permissions can bypass command whitelisting due to insufficient server-side validation, allowing arbitrary OS command execution.
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
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Foreman versionRun 'hammer settings list' or check /usr/share/foreman/lib/foreman/version.rb, or query the API: hammer settings-info --name versionAffected if Version is unpatched and within the vulnerable release range for CVE-2025-10622
-
Verify edit_settings permission assignmentsCheck user role assignments via Hammer: hammer user-role list or hammer filter list --search 'permission = edit_settings'. Review who has the edit_settings permission granted outside of admin roles.Affected if Any authenticated user other than trusted admins has edit_settings permission enabled
-
Confirm command whitelisting is activeInspect the settings for command restrictions. Run: hammer settings-info --name validate_whitelist or check /etc/foreman/plugins/ whitelist.yaml for active command restrictions.Affected if Command whitelisting is configured and the bypass occurs when commands are validated server-side against the whitelist
-
Review settings-related API endpointsCheck API access logs or audit records for calls to /api/v2/settings or POST /api/settings. Look for requests modifying the whitelist or command validation settings.Affected if Any user with edit_settings has made POST/PUT requests to settings endpoints that could modify whitelisted commands
A user is affected if they run a Foreman version containing the flaw AND have non-admin users with edit_settings permission where command whitelisting is enforced but can be bypassed through settings modification.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor dataRestrict edit_settings permissions to trusted admins only until the patch is applied; implement strict server-side validation of all commands against an explicit whitelist.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-10622 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-10622 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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