CVE-2025-64126
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 · uneditedAn OS command injection vulnerability exists due to improper input validation. The application accepts a parameter directly from user input without verifying it is a valid IP address or filtering potentially malicious characters. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker to inject 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 confidenceThis is an OS command injection vulnerability where the application passes user-supplied input directly to a system shell without validating that the input is a legitimate IP address or sanitizing shell metacharacters. An unauthenticated attacker can inject arbitrary OS commands via this parameter, potentially achieving full system compromise.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 application parameters that accept IP address inputReview application source code or API endpoints for parameters that accept IP address values (e.g., ping, traceroute, network diagnostic functions). Search for function calls that process IP addresses.Affected if The application has parameters that accept IP addresses for network-related operations
-
Locate OS command execution calls in the codebaseSearch the codebase for functions that execute OS commands (e.g., exec, system, shell_exec, Runtime.exec, ProcessBuilder, subprocess.run with shell=True). Identify which functions handle IP address input.Affected if OS command execution functions are used to process IP address parameters
-
Inspect input validation for IP address parametersExamine the code paths that process IP address input. Look for validation routines that verify the input conforms to valid IPv4 or IPv6 format before passing to OS command functions.Affected if No validation or weak validation exists that only checks format but not malicious characters (e.g., semicolons, pipes, command separators)
-
Test for command injection via IP address parameterIf you have access to the running application, send a test request with an IP address containing command injection payloads (e.g., '8.8.8.8; whoami' or '8.8.8.8 | id'). Observe if commands are executed.Affected if The injected commands are executed and returned in the application response
Your environment is affected if the application processes IP address input through OS command execution functions without proper validation that filters command separators and special characters.
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 to ensure the parameter contains only valid IP address format (using regex or built-in validation functions), and/or replace dynamic command construction with parameterized commands or safe API alternatives that do not invoke shell interpretation.
- 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-2025-64126 — 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-2025-64126 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