dbcve.org
OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2025-11148

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-09-30
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
All versions of the package check-branches are vulnerable to Command Injection check-branches is a command-line tool that is interacted with locally, or via CI, to confirm no conflicts exist in git branches. However, the library follows these conventions which can be abused: 1. It trusts branch names as they are (plain text) 2. It spawns git commands by concatenating user input Since a branch name is potentially a user input - as users can create branches remotely via pull requests, or simply due to privileged access to a repository - it can effectively be abused to run any command.

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 check-branches CLI tool suffers from command injection as it concatenates unsanitized user-controlled branch names directly into git command execution. Since branch names can be supplied via pull requests or by users with repository access, attackers can inject arbitrary shell commands.

MitigationDo not use this package until a patched version is released. If immediate use is required, implement input validation to sanitize branch names before passing to git commands, rejecting any input containing shell metacharacters.

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
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 checks

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

  1. Identify if check-branches package is installed
    Run 'npm list check-branches' or 'yarn list --pattern check-branches' to see if the package exists in your node_modules. Also check package.json dependencies.
    Affected if The package appears in your installed dependencies or package.json
  2. Determine installed version
    Run 'npm list check-branches --depth=0' or check the version in package-lock.json or yarn.lock
    Affected if You have a version installed - all versions are potentially affected since no patched version is mentioned in the advisory
  3. Check for usage in automated workflows
    Search your CI/CD configuration files (such as .github/workflows/*.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, Jenkinsfile, or similar) for invocations of the check-branches CLI tool
    Affected if The tool is invoked in automated pipelines that process external pull requests or branches from untrusted contributors
  4. Verify branch name input source
    Examine how branch names are passed to the check-branches command - check if they come from user-controlled sources such as GitHub pull request events, external contributors, or webhook payloads
    Affected if Branch names supplied to the tool originate from untrusted or external sources without sanitization
  5. Inspect git command execution context
    If you have access to the source code, review how branch names are concatenated into git commands - look for backtick execution, shell spawning, or string interpolation into command strings
    Affected if The code uses string concatenation or template literals to insert branch names directly into shell commands without validation

You are affected if the check-branches package is installed and branch names from untrusted sources (such as pull requests or external contributors) can reach the tool without sanitization of shell metacharacters.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Do not use this package until a patched version is released. If immediate use is required, implement input validation to sanitize branch names before passing to git commands, rejecting any input containing shell metacharacters.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
19.0 hours of engineering $3,380
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11148 — 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-2025-11148 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