CVE-2025-54469
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 vulnerability was identified in NeuVector, where the enforcer used environment variables CLUSTER_RPC_PORT and CLUSTER_LAN_PORT to generate a command to be executed via popen, without first sanitising their values. The entry process of the enforcer container is the monitor process. When the enforcer container stops, the monitor process checks whether the consul subprocess has exited. To perform this check, the monitor process uses the popen function to execute a shell command that determines whether the ports used by the consul subprocess are still active. The values of environment variables CLUSTER_RPC_PORT and CLUSTER_LAN_PORT are used directly to compose shell commands via popen without validation or sanitization. This behavior could allow a malicious user to inject malicious commands through these variables within the enforcer container.
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 confidenceA command injection vulnerability exists in NeuVector's enforcer container where the CLUSTER_RPC_PORT and CLUSTER_LAN_PORT environment variables are used directly in popen() shell commands without sanitization, allowing injection of arbitrary commands.
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
- 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 NeuVector enforcer containersRun 'kubectl get pods -A | grep neuvector' or 'docker ps | grep neuvector' to list running NeuVector enforcer containersAffected if NeuVector enforcer containers are present in the environment
-
Determine NeuVector enforcer versionRun 'kubectl get pod <enforcer-pod> -n <namespace> -o jsonpath="{.spec.containers[0].image}"' or inspect the container image tag directlyAffected if The installed version falls within the affected range (compare your version to the known affected NeuVector versions)
-
Check for CLUSTER_RPC_PORT environment variableRun 'kubectl get pod <enforcer-pod> -n <namespace> -o jsonpath="{.spec.containers[0].env[?(@.name=="CLUSTER_RPC_PORT")].value}"' or inspect container environment variablesAffected if CLUSTER_RPC_PORT environment variable is set on the enforcer container
-
Check for CLUSTER_LAN_PORT environment variableRun 'kubectl get pod <enforcer-pod> -n <namespace> -o jsonpath="{.spec.containers[0].env[?(@.name=="CLUSTER_LAN_PORT")].value}"' or inspect container environment variablesAffected if CLUSTER_LAN_PORT environment variable is set on the enforcer container
The environment is affected if NeuVector enforcer is running with CLUSTER_RPC_PORT or CLUSTER_LAN_PORT environment variables configured, especially if these contain shell metacharacters or untrusted input.
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 input validation on port environment variables to ensure they contain only valid port numbers, or refactor to use safer APIs that don't invoke shell interpretation instead of popen().
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-54469 — 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-2025-54469 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