dbcve.org
Code InjectionWeakness · CWE-94

CVE-2025-49521

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-06-30
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable 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
A flaw was found in the EDA component of the Ansible Automation Platform, where user-supplied Git branch or refspec values are evaluated as Jinja2 templates. This vulnerability allows authenticated users to inject expressions that execute commands or access sensitive files on the EDA worker. In OpenShift, it can lead to service account token theft.

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 confidence

This is a Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability in the EDA (Event-Driven Ansible) controller where user-supplied Git branch or refspec values are improperly evaluated as Jinja2 templates. Authenticated users can inject malicious Jinja2 expressions to achieve arbitrary command execution or file system access on the EDA worker, with potential service account token theft in OpenShift environments.

MitigationDisable or restrict Git rulebook/automation capabilities in the EDA component until the vendor patch is applied; implement strict input validation to prevent Jinja2 template evaluation on Git branch/refspec parameters.

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
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 checks

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

  1. Confirm EDA controller is present
    Identify if Event-Driven Ansible (EDA) is deployed in your environment. Look for processes, containers, or services named ansible-eda, eda-server, or the EDA component within AWX/Tower installations.
    Affected if EDA controller component is running in your environment
  2. Check if Git rulebook features are enabled
    Inspect EDA configuration for any activated rulebooks, Git webhook integrations, or automation sources that pull rulebooks from Git repositories. Look for configurations referencing git sources or repository URLs.
    Affected if Git-based rulebook sources, Git webhooks, or Git automation capabilities are enabled in EDA
  3. Verify user access to Git integration features
    Review which authenticated users have permissions to create, modify, or trigger rulebooks that interact with Git repositories. Check role assignments for Git-related EDA operations.
    Affected if Authenticated users can interact with Git branch or refspec parameters in rulebook configurations
  4. Compare installed EDA version against vendor advisories
    Query the running EDA version using command-line tools (eda-server --version, ansible-eda --version) or inspect the container image/tag. Compare against version numbers cited in Red Hat or Ansible security advisories.
    Affected if Installed version predates the vendor patch or matches vulnerable version ranges
  5. Inspect Git configurations for template syntax
    Examine existing rulebook definitions, Git source configurations, or webhook payloads for unexpected Jinja2 template markers ({{, }}, {%) in branch names or refspec fields.
    Affected if Branch or refspec fields contain Jinja2 template syntax characters

Your environment is affected if EDA controller is running with Git rulebook capabilities enabled and authenticated users can supply Git branch or refspec values that get evaluated as templates.

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

Disable or restrict Git rulebook/automation capabilities in the EDA component until the vendor patch is applied; implement strict input validation to prevent Jinja2 template evaluation on Git branch/refspec parameters.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $3,020
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,832.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-49521 — 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-2025-49521 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