dbcve.org
Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-77

CVE-2025-4653

HIGH · 7.0 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-06-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
79/100
Remediation priority · High
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
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in the backup name field may allow OS command injection. This issue affects Pandora ITSM 5.0.105.

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 confidence

The backup name field in Pandora ITSM version 5.0.105 does not properly neutralize special elements, allowing an authenticated attacker to inject OS commands through unsanitized input. This command injection occurs when the backup name is processed without adequate input validation or secure coding practices.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and sanitization for the backup name field, avoiding direct use of user input in system calls; use parameterized approaches or allowlist validation for acceptable backup name characters.

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
High
Authentication
None
User interaction
None
Scope
N

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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:N/AU:N/R:U/V:D/RE:M/U:Green

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm Pandora ITSM installation
    Locate and identify the Pandora ITSM application installation in your environment
    Affected if Pandora ITSM is not present on the system
  2. Check installed version
    Retrieve the exact version number of your Pandora ITSM installation and compare it to 5.0.105
    Affected if The installed version matches 5.0.105 exactly
  3. Verify backup functionality is accessible
    Confirm that the backup feature module is present and accessible within the Pandora ITSM interface
    Affected if The backup feature is enabled and accessible to users
  4. Check authentication mechanism
    Determine whether user authentication is configured and functional for the backup feature
    Affected if Authenticated users can access the backup name input field

You are affected if Pandora ITSM version 5.0.105 is installed and authenticated users can access the backup name field without the vulnerability being patched.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation and sanitization for the backup name field, avoiding direct use of user input in system calls; use parameterized approaches or allowlist validation for acceptable backup name characters.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-4653 — 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-2025-4653 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