CVE-2025-31342
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 · uneditedAn unrestricted upload of file with dangerous type vulnerability in the upload file function of Galaxy Software Services Corporation Vitals ESP Forum Module through 1.3 version allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary system commands via a malicious file.
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 · moderate confidenceThe Vitals ESP Forum Module through version 1.3 contains an unrestricted file upload vulnerability in its upload function. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file types, allowing authenticated users to upload malicious files (such as web shells) that can be executed by the web server to achieve arbitrary 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/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.
-
Identify if Vitals ESP Forum Module is installedSearch the application codebase or deployed files for the Vitals ESP Forum Module components. Look for module directories or files named 'forum', 'vitals', or similar. Check the application's module/component list if available.Affected if The Vitals ESP Forum Module is present in the environment
-
Determine the installed version of the forum moduleLocate the version information for the Vitals ESP Forum Module. Check version files, module metadata, or the application's software bill of materials (SBOM). Common locations include a version.php file, module configuration, or the main forum index file.Affected if The version is 1.3 or any earlier version (all versions through 1.3 are affected)
-
Verify the file upload feature is accessibleCheck if the forum module has an active upload function. Look for upload forms, file attachment features, or file upload endpoints in the forum. Test access to the upload functionality if possible.Affected if The file upload feature exists and is accessible to users
-
Confirm user authentication is enabledReview the forum module's authentication and user registration settings. Determine whether regular users can register and log in to the forum.Affected if User authentication is enabled and authenticated users can access the upload feature
The environment is affected if the Vitals ESP Forum Module is installed with version 1.3 or earlier, the file upload feature is accessible, and user authentication is enabled to allow authenticated users to exploit the unrestricted file upload.
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 dataImplement strict allowlist-based file type validation, store uploads outside the webroot, disable script execution permissions on upload directories, and rename uploaded files to prevent direct access and execution.
- 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-2025-31342 — 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-2025-31342 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