CVE-2025-64128
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 incomplete validation of user-supplied input. Validation fails to enforce sufficient formatting rules, which could permit attackers to append arbitrary data. 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 · moderate confidenceThis is an OS command injection vulnerability in a web application or API where user-supplied input is passed to system commands without proper validation. An unauthenticated attacker can inject arbitrary OS commands by appending command separators or payloads to user input fields that are used in shell execution routines.
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 shell command execution points in the applicationSearch the codebase for functions that invoke system commands such as exec(), system(), shell_exec(), popen(), Runtime.exec(), ProcessBuilder, or similar shell invocation methodsAffected if The application contains code that executes system commands and user-controlled input reaches these functions without validation
-
Map user input sources to command execution pathsTrace data flow from HTTP request parameters, headers, cookies, and POST body fields to the identified shell execution functionsAffected if User-supplied input from web requests flows directly into shell command execution routines without sanitization
-
Inspect input validation on command-sensitive endpointsReview the validation logic for parameters used in command execution - check for allowlists, rejection of command separators (;, |, &, $, `, ||, &&), or absence of any input filteringAffected if No strict input validation exists, or validation can be bypassed, allowing command separators or payloads to pass through
-
Check for unauthenticated command execution routesIdentify if the vulnerable command execution endpoints are accessible without authentication - review routing configuration and access control definitionsAffected if The command execution functionality is reachable by unauthenticated users (no login or session required)
-
Examine command construction methodReview how commands are built - look for string concatenation, string formatting, or interpolation of user input into shell command strings versus use of parameterized command execution APIsAffected if Commands are constructed by concatenating user input into shell strings rather than using parameterized execution methods
You are affected if your application exposes any functionality that passes unauthenticated user input directly into shell command execution without strict validation or safe API usage.
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 using allowlists, avoid passing user input to shell commands, use parameterized APIs or sandboxed execution environments instead of shell invocation.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64128 — 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-2025-64128 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