CVE-2025-54347
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 · uneditedA Directory Traversal vulnerability was found in the Application Server of Desktop Alert PingAlert version 6.1.0.11 to 6.1.1.2 which allows an attacker to write arbitrary files under certain conditions.
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 confidenceA directory traversal vulnerability in the Application Server of Desktop Alert PingAlert versions 6.1.0.11 to 6.1.1.2 allows remote attackers to write arbitrary files to the filesystem via path traversal sequences (e.g., ../), potentially enabling remote code execution or complete system compromise.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 6.1.0.11, < 6.1.1.6CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 PingAlert Application Server versionLocate the installation directory and check version information in the application manifest, About dialog, or installation logs. Common locations: Program Files/DesktopAlert or installation root folder. Look for version.txt, manifest.xml, or check the executable properties.Affected if Installed version is >= 6.1.0.11 and < 6.1.1.6
-
Confirm Application Server component is runningCheck if the PingAlert Application Server service or process is active. Look for processes named PingAlert.exe, PingAlertServer.exe, or check Windows Services for Desktop Alert services.Affected if The Application Server component is running and accessible on the network
-
Identify exposed file operation endpointsReview the Application Server configuration and accessible HTTP endpoints. Check web.config, server.xml, or similar configuration files for servlet/mapping definitions that handle file uploads or file path parameters.Affected if The server exposes HTTP endpoints that accept file paths or file upload parameters without strict input validation
-
Test for path traversal vulnerabilityIf accessible, send a crafted request with ../ sequences to suspected file operation endpoints (e.g., ?path=../../test.txt or file parameter with traversal sequences). Observe if files are created outside the intended directory.Affected if Path traversal sequences are accepted and file operations occur outside the intended base directory
-
Review application logs for traversal attemptsExamine Application Server logs for failed or successful path traversal attempts. Check logs in the installation/logs folder for suspicious patterns like ../ in file path parameters.Affected if Logs show evidence of path traversal sequences being processed by the server
Your environment is affected if the PingAlert Application Server version is 6.1.0.11 through 6.1.1.5 and the server is running with accessible file operation functionality that does not sanitize path traversal sequences.
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.
dbcve · scoped6.1.1.6
Upgrade to a version beyond 6.1.1.2 when available; otherwise, implement strict input validation on the application server to reject path traversal characters and ensure all file operations are confined to allowed directories.
6.1.1.6 or later
- 1. Identify the currently installed PingAlert Application Server version by checking the application properties or About section.
- 2. If the installed version is between 6.1.0.11 and 6.1.1.5 (inclusive), plan for an upgrade.
- 3. Backup the current PingAlert installation directory and configuration files before proceeding.
- 4. Download Desktop Alert PingAlert version 6.1.1.6 or later from the official vendor source (desktopalert.net).
- 5. Stop the PingAlert Application Server service if it is currently running.
- 6. Install the new version following the vendor's standard upgrade procedure.
- 7. Restart the PingAlert Application Server service.
- 8. Verify the installation was successful and the service is running properly.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2025-54347 — 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-2025-54347 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