dbcve.org
OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2025-59518

HIGH · 8.0 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-09-17
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
86/100
Remediation priority · High
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
In LemonLDAP::NG before 2.16.7 and 2.17 through 2.21 before 2.21.3, OS command injection can occur in the Safe jail. It does not Localize _ during rule evaluation. Thus, an administrator who can edit a rule evaluated by the Safe jail can execute commands on the server.

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

LemonLDAP::NG versions before 2.16.7 and 2.17-2.21 before 2.21.3 contain an OS command injection vulnerability in the Safe jail. The Safe jail does not properly localize the `_` variable during rule evaluation, allowing an administrator with edit rights to rules evaluated by the Safe jail to execute arbitrary OS commands on the server.

MitigationUpgrade LemonLDAP::NG to version 2.16.7, 2.21.3, or later. Additionally, review and audit all rules evaluated by the Safe jail for any unauthorized or malicious content, and restrict administrative access to rule editing where possible.

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
High
Privileges
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/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 checks

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

  1. Determine installed LemonLDAP::NG version
    Check the installed package version using your system package manager (dpkg -l lemonldap-ng, rpm -q lemonldap-ng, or similar). Alternatively, log into the LemonLDAP::NG Manager web interface and look for the version number typically displayed in the footer or in the 'About' section.
    Affected if The installed version is below 2.16.7, or falls between 2.17.0 and 2.21.2 inclusive.
  2. Identify rules using the Safe jail
    In the LemonLDAP::NG Manager, navigate to the Rules configuration section. Look for any rules that have 'Safe' or 'Safe jail' specified as the execution context or jail type. These are typically found under 'Rules' > 'Advanced' or within individual virtual host rule configurations.
    Affected if There exist rules configured to be evaluated by the Safe jail.
  3. Verify administrative access to rule editing
    Check the LemonLDAP::NG Manager permissions under 'Users' > 'Admins' or the corresponding rights management section. Determine which administrators have edit or write permissions for the rules identified in step 2.
    Affected if One or more administrators have edit rights to the Safe jail rules.
  4. Inspect rule content for suspicious elements
    Review the actual Perl code or expressions defined in the Safe jail rules. Look for unexpected system calls, backticks, or shell execution patterns (exec, system, qx, backticks) that were not intentionally configured by your organization.
    Affected if The rule content contains unauthorized or unexpected OS command execution syntax.

You are affected if your LemonLDAP::NG version is below 2.16.7 or between 2.17.0-2.21.2 AND you have Safe jail rules that administrators can edit.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade LemonLDAP::NG to version 2.16.7, 2.21.3, or later. Additionally, review and audit all rules evaluated by the Safe jail for any unauthorized or malicious content, and restrict administrative access to rule editing where possible.

Recommended fix High confidence

Upgrade to LemonLDAP::NG 2.16.7 or 2.21.3 (depending on your current major version)

  1. 1. Identify the currently installed LemonLDAP::NG version by checking the package manager or web interface
  2. 2. If running version 2.16.x (before 2.16.7), upgrade to version 2.16.7
  3. 3. If running version 2.17.x through 2.21.x (before 2.21.3), upgrade to version 2.21.3
  4. 4. For versions before 2.16, upgrade directly to 2.16.7 or the latest stable 2.21.3
  5. 5. After upgrade, verify the Safe jail functionality still works as expected
  6. 6. Review admin rule configurations to ensure no malicious rules were added
Caveat Review release notes for any configuration or behavioral changes between your current version and the target upgrade version

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59518 — 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-2025-59518 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