CVE-2025-6445
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 · uneditedServiceStack FindType Directory Traversal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of ServiceStack. Interaction with this library is required to exploit this vulnerability but attack vectors may vary depending on the implementation. The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the FindType method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied path prior to using it in file operations. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-25837.
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 confidenceA directory traversal vulnerability exists in ServiceStack's FindType method due to insufficient validation of user-supplied paths before file operations. An attacker can manipulate path inputs to access files outside the intended directory, potentially achieving remote code execution in the context of the running process.
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< 8.6CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 ServiceStack installationLocate ServiceStack assemblies or packages in your application (check bin directories, package references, or dependencies list). Look for ServiceStack.dll or ServiceStack.*.dll files.Affected if ServiceStack is present in the environment
-
Determine installed ServiceStack versionCheck the version of the ServiceStack assembly or package. This can be done via assembly metadata, package manager, or your dependency lock file (packages.config, .csproj, or similar).Affected if The version is lower than 8.6 (e.g., 8.5.x, 8.0.x, or earlier)
-
Verify FindType method exposureInspect your application's code and configuration to determine if the FindType method is exposed through any public API endpoints, services, or interfaces. Check routes, controllers, or service definitions that might invoke FindType.Affected if FindType method is accessible via HTTP, API, or other user-accessible interface
-
Check for path validation on FindType inputsReview code that calls FindType to see if it performs path sanitization or validation before passing user input. Look for validation logic that restricts paths to expected directories.Affected if No path validation exists or validation can be bypassed, allowing traversal sequences like ../ in input
You are affected if ServiceStack version is below 8.6 AND the FindType method is exposed with insufficient path validation on its inputs.
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.
dbcve · scoped8.6
Update ServiceStack to the latest patched version. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement strict path validation and sanitization on all FindType method inputs, and restrict network exposure to the service.
ServiceStack 8.6 or later
- Upgrade ServiceStack to version 8.6 or later to address the path traversal vulnerability in the FindType method
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6445 — 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-2025-6445 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