dbcve.org
Deserialization of Untrusted DataWeakness · CWE-502

CVE-2025-25034

CRITICAL · 9.3 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-06-20
No fix yet
No fix has been published. The vendor has not shipped a fixed release or patch. You remain exposed.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Public exploit 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
A PHP object injection vulnerability exists in SugarCRM versions prior to 6.5.24, 6.7.13, 7.5.2.5, 7.6.2.2, and 7.7.1.0 due to improper validation of PHP serialized input in the SugarRestSerialize.php script. The vulnerable code fails to sanitize the rest_data parameter before passing it to the unserialize() function. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to submit crafted serialized data containing malicious object declarations, resulting in arbitrary code execution within the application context. Although SugarCRM released a prior fix in advisory sugarcrm-sa-2016-001, the patch was incomplete and failed to address some vectors. Exploitation evidence was observed by the Shadowserver Foundation on 2024-09-13 UTC.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-502

The application rebuilds objects from attacker-supplied serialized data, and the act of rebuilding can trigger dangerous code paths. In many runtimes this leads straight to remote code execution. The durable fix is to avoid deserializing untrusted input — or to use a strict, type-limited format with integrity checks.

General guidance for the deserialization of untrusted data class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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:N/SI:N/SA:N/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

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
Recommended fix High confidence

Upgrade to version 6.5.24, 6.7.13, 7.5.2.5, 7.6.2.2, or 7.7.1.0 depending on your current major version branch

  1. 1. Identify the current SugarCRM version by checking the admin panel or version.php file in the installation directory.
  2. 2. Based on the current version, determine the appropriate upgrade target: for 6.5.x upgrade to 6.5.24, for 6.7.x upgrade to 6.7.13, for 7.5.x upgrade to 7.5.2.5, for 7.6.x upgrade to 7.6.2.2, or for 7.7.x upgrade to 7.7.1.0.
  3. 3. Backup the entire SugarCRM installation including database before performing the upgrade.
  4. 4. Download the corresponding patch or upgrade package from the official SugarCRM support portal or customer portal.
  5. 5. Apply the upgrade following SugarCRM's standard upgrade documentation for your specific version path.
  6. 6. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the version number in the admin panel.
  7. 7. Confirm the SugarRestSerialize.php file has been patched by reviewing the code to ensure it no longer passes unsanitized rest_data to unserialize().
Caveat Upgrades between major version branches may require testing of customizations and modules; review SugarCRM upgrade documentation for compatibility notes

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

No vendor fix exists The vendor has not published a patch for this.

There is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.

Add your voice

Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.

Can’t wait

We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $3,550. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.

Scope it with us

See what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25034 — 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-2025-25034 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