CVE-2025-30056
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 · uneditedThe RunCommand function accepts any parameter, which is then passed for execution in the shell. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the system.
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 confidenceThe RunCommand function accepts user-supplied or untrusted input without validation and passes it directly to shell execution, enabling arbitrary code injection. An attacker can inject shell metacharacters or additional commands to achieve remote code execution or privilege escalation.
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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate RunCommand function usage in codebaseSearch source code repositories for occurrences of 'RunCommand', 'exec.Command', 'system', 'shell_exec', or similar command execution functionsAffected if Code contains RunCommand or similar functions that execute system commands
-
Trace user input to command executionReview data flow from HTTP request parameters, headers, cookies, or file inputs into RunCommand calls. Use code analysis tools or manual review to map the pathAffected if Untrusted user input reaches RunCommand without passing through validation logic
-
Check for input validation before RunCommandInspect code immediately preceding RunCommand calls for sanitization functions such as regex matching, allowlist validation, or parameterized APIs. Verify validation actually rejects shell metacharactersAffected if No validation exists, or validation can be bypassed, before user input is passed to RunCommand
-
Identify execution context and privilege levelExamine the process or service account running the vulnerable code. Check if it runs as root, administrator, or with elevated privilegesAffected if RunCommand executes under a high-privilege account, enabling privilege escalation
-
Test for command injection vectorsSubmit payloads containing shell metacharacters (e.g., |, ;, &&, $, `, >, <) as input to endpoints or functions using RunCommand. Observe if commands executeAffected if Shell metacharacters in input result in unexpected command execution
You are affected if your codebase contains a RunCommand function that receives unvalidated user input and passes it directly to shell execution.
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 dataReplace shell-based command execution with parameterized APIs or explicit command arguments; implement strict allowlist-based input validation; apply principle of least privilege to the process running the vulnerable code.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-30056 — 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-2025-30056 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