CVE-2025-57285
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 · uneditedcodeceptjs 3.7.3 contains a command injection vulnerability in the emptyFolder function (lib/utils.js). The execSync command directly concatenates the user-controlled directoryPath parameter without sanitization or escaping, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands.
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 confidenceIn codeceptjs 3.7.3, the emptyFolder function in lib/utils.js passes user-controlled directoryPath directly to Node.js execSync without sanitization or escaping, enabling arbitrary command execution via shell metacharacters.
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= 3.7.3CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed CodeceptJS versionRun `npm list codeceptjs` or `npm list -g codeceptjs` depending on installation type, or check package.json for the codeceptjs version entryAffected if version equals 3.7.3 exactly
-
Locate the vulnerable file lib/utils.jsFind the codeceptjs installation directory (typically in node_modules/codeceptjs/lib/utils.js) and verify the file existsAffected if the file exists and is part of codeceptjs version 3.7.3
-
Inspect emptyFolder function for unsafe execSync usageOpen lib/utils.js and search for the emptyFolder function definition - verify it passes directoryPath directly to execSync without using execFile with argument array or input sanitizationAffected if the function uses execSync with the path parameter directly without escaping or validation (e.g., execSync('rm -rf ' + directoryPath))
-
Verify if application code calls emptyFolder with user inputSearch project codebase for calls to emptyFolder or the internal method that invokes it - check if any user-supplied values (request parameters, file uploads, API inputs) can reach this functionAffected if user-controlled data can flow to the emptyFolder function's directoryPath parameter
You are affected if CodeceptJS version is exactly 3.7.3 and your application passes unsanitized user input to the emptyFolder function in lib/utils.js.
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 dataReplace direct execSync usage with safe alternatives such as child_process.execFile with arguments array, or implement strict input validation and escaping of shell metacharacters before execution.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-57285 — 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-2025-57285 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