CVE-2025-3499
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 device has two web servers that expose unauthenticated REST APIs on the management network (TCP ports 8084 and 8086). Exploiting OS command injection through these APIs, an attacker can send arbitrary commands that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating 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 device has two unauthenticated REST APIs exposed on TCP ports 8084 and 8086 (management network) that are vulnerable to OS command injection. An attacker can send arbitrary commands that execute with administrative (root) permissions on the underlying operating system.
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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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.
-
Identify if ports 8084 and 8086 are listeningRun 'netstat -tuln | grep -E "8084|8086"' or 'ss -tuln | grep -E "8084|8086"' to see if these TCP ports are bound to any interfaceAffected if Ports 8084 or 8086 are in LISTEN state
-
Determine if management network ports are exposed externallyCheck firewall rules with 'iptables -L -n' or 'ufw status' to see if ports 8084 and 8086 are open to untrusted networksAffected if Ports 8084 or 8086 accept connections from non-localhost interfaces
-
Verify REST API accessibility without authenticationSend a request to the API endpoints on ports 8084 and 8086 (e.g., curl http://localhost:8084/api or curl http://localhost:8086/api) and observe if responses are returned without requiring login credentialsAffected if The REST APIs return valid responses without any authentication token or credentials
-
Confirm input validation gaps in the REST APITest the API with benign special characters in input parameters (e.g., curl -X POST http://localhost:8084/api/endpoint -d 'param=test|ls') and check if the response indicates command execution or reveals system informationAffected if Input containing shell metacharacters is processed without sanitization and potentially executed
-
Compare installed product version to any documented fixIdentify the product and version running the vulnerable service using 'ps aux | grep -i <product>', 'dpkg -l', or vendor documentation, then compare against the latest patched version from the vendorAffected if The installed version predates the vendor patch for this command injection vulnerability
You are affected if ports 8084 or 8086 are exposed and the REST APIs on those ports accept unauthenticated requests with unsanitized input that can trigger command injection.
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 dataRestrict network access to ports 8084 and 8086, implement strong authentication on the REST APIs, and add input validation/sanitization to prevent command injection.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-3499 — 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-2025-3499 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