CVE-2025-25064
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 · uneditedSQL injection vulnerability in the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint in Zimbra Collaboration 10.0.x before 10.0.12 and 10.1.x before 10.1.4 due to insufficient sanitization of a user-supplied parameter. Authenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability by manipulating a specific parameter in the request, allowing them to inject arbitrary SQL queries that could retrieve email metadata.
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 confidenceA SQL injection vulnerability exists in the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint of Zimbra Collaboration versions 10.0.x before 10.0.12 and 10.1.x before 10.1.4. The vulnerability stems from insufficient sanitization of a user-supplied parameter, allowing authenticated attackers to inject arbitrary SQL queries and retrieve email metadata.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.12>= 10.1.0, < 10.1.4CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Zimbra Collaboration Suite versionRun 'zmcontrol -v' or check '/opt/zimbra/.install_history' for the installed version string. Compare against affected ranges: 10.0.0 to 10.0.11, or 10.1.0 to 10.1.3Affected if Installed version is 10.0.x where x < 12, or 10.1.x where x < 4
-
Verify ZimbraSync Service is enabledRun 'zmprov gs $(hostname) zimbraZimletMandatoryZimlets' or check 'zmprov gacf | grep zimbraZimletEnabled' to see if Sync-related zimlets are present. Also check if the service responds on SOAP ports (typically 8443)Affected if ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint is active and responding to requests
-
Confirm SOAP endpoint is network accessibleCheck network listeners with 'netstat -tlnp | grep -E "(8443|7071)"' or review firewall rules and nginx proxy configuration in '/opt/zimbra/conf/nginx.conf' for SOAP endpoint bindingsAffected if The SOAP endpoint is exposed externally without IP restriction or authentication proxying
-
Inspect SOAP endpoint logs for SQL injection patternsSearch Zimbra mail log files (typically '/var/log/zimbra.log' or '/opt/zimbra/log/mailbox.log') for SQL keywords like 'UNION', 'SELECT', 'DROP', or common injection patterns in requests to the sync endpointAffected if Log entries contain suspicious SQL-like syntax in SOAP request parameters
-
Check authentication configuration for SOAP servicesReview '/opt/zimbra/conf/localconfig.xml' for 'zimbra_soap_authentication_enabled' setting, or run 'zmprov gacf zimbraSoapAuthEnabled'Affected if SOAP authentication is disabled or set to allow anonymous access (this would increase exposure)
Environment is affected if running Zimbra Collaboration version 10.0.x below 12 or 10.1.x below 4 AND the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint is enabled and accessible to authenticated users or attackers.
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.
dbcve · scoped10.0.1210.1.4
Apply the vendor-provided patches (10.0.12 or 10.1.4) to address the insufficient parameter sanitization in the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint. Until patches are applied, monitor authentication logs for unusual SQL-like patterns in requests.
Upgrade to Zimbra 10.0.12 or 10.1.4 (the fixed releases)
- Perform a full backup of the Zimbra Collaboration Suite installation and all data before proceeding
- Ensure the system meets the prerequisites for the target version
- Download the fixed version (10.0.12 for 10.0.x users or 10.1.4 for 10.1.x users) from the official Zimbra repository
- Stop all Zimbra services prior to the upgrade
- Run the Zimbra upgrade installer for the target fixed version
- Restart Zimbra services after the upgrade completes
- Verify the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint is functioning correctly
- Confirm the version number matches the expected fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25064 — 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-2025-25064 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