CVE-2025-64127
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 insufficient sanitization of user-supplied input. The application accepts parameters that are later incorporated into OS commands without adequate validation. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands remotely.
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 confidenceOS command injection vulnerability exists where user-supplied input is incorporated into OS commands without adequate sanitization or validation, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying system.
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 applications that process user input and execute OS commandsReview your deployed software, web applications, and services. Check for applications that accept user input and then execute system commands (look for exec(), system(), shell_exec(), popen(), Runtime.exec() or similar functions in your codebase or deployed binaries).Affected if Your environment contains applications that pass user input directly into OS command execution functions without using parameterized APIs.
-
Determine the product name and version of command-executing softwareFor each identified application, locate the installed version (check /opt, /usr/local, /var/www, application config files, or use 'dpkg -l', 'rpm -qa', or vendor-specific version commands).Affected if The installed version matches or falls within the affected version range for this CVE (compare against vendor's official advisory).
-
Inspect code or configuration for user input reaching command functionsSearch application source code or binaries for patterns where user-supplied parameters (GET/POST request parameters, headers, cookies, file uploads) are concatenated or interpolated into shell command strings. Use grep for exec, system, shell_exec, or review web app frameworks for processBuilder calls.Affected if User-controlled input is directly concatenated into OS command strings without sanitization, parameterization, or allowlist validation.
-
Check for lack of input validation layersReview the application's input handling logic. Verify whether there is strict allowlist validation, input sanitization routines, or use of parameterized command execution APIs (such as avoiding shell interpretation).Affected if The code uses direct string concatenation for commands and lacks input validation or uses only weak/blacklist validation.
-
Verify if the vulnerable command execution feature is exposedDetermine if the vulnerable code path is accessible to unauthenticated users. Check network exposure, authentication requirements, and whether the specific endpoint/function handling user input is reachable.Affected if The command injection point is reachable without authentication over the network (HTTP API, CLI interface, or other input vector).
Your environment is affected if you run software that passes unsanitized user input directly into OS command execution functions and the vulnerable version matches the CVE-affected range with unauthenticated network access to that input vector.
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 and use parameterized command execution APIs instead of constructing shell commands from user input; where shell commands are unavoidable, employ allowlist validation and avoid direct concatenation of user data.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64127 — 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-2025-64127 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