CVE-2025-63334
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 · uneditedPocketVJ CP PocketVJ-CP-v3 pvj version 3.9.1 contains an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in the submit_opacity.php component. The application fails to sanitize user input in the opacityValue POST parameter before passing it to a shell command, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the underlying system.
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 confidencePocketVJ CP v3.9.1 contains an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in submit_opacity.php. The application fails to sanitize user input in the opacityValue POST parameter before passing it to a shell command, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges.
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= 3.9.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify PocketVJ CP versionAccess the web administration interface and check the firmware version displayed in the dashboard, settings, or about page. Alternatively, check the firmware file or system information if accessible via SSH or console.Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.9.1
-
Locate submit_opacity.phpCheck if the file submit_opacity.php exists in the web directory, typically under /var/www/html or similar web root paths accessible via file system or FTP if available.Affected if The file submit_opacity.php exists on the system
-
Verify unauthenticated access to the endpointAttempt to access the submit_opacity.php script directly via HTTP/HTTPS without providing any authentication credentials. Observe if the script processes requests without requiring login.Affected if The endpoint accepts requests without authentication
-
Check for shell command usage with opacityValueReview the source code of submit_opacity.php if accessible, specifically looking for the opacityValue POST parameter being passed to shell functions such as exec(), shell_exec(), system(), or passthru() without sanitization.Affected if The opacityValue parameter is used in shell execution functions without input validation
The system is affected if it runs PocketVJ CP version 3.9.1, contains the vulnerable submit_opacity.php script, allows unauthenticated access to that endpoint, and the opacityValue parameter is passed to shell commands without sanitization.
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 dataSanitize and validate the opacityValue parameter before using it in shell commands—use allowlists, escape shell metacharacters, or avoid shell execution entirely. Consider adding authentication to the affected endpoint and restricting the application's privileges to least privilege.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-63334 — 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-2025-63334 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