CVE-2025-68645
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 · uneditedA Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability exists in the Webmail Classic UI of Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 10.0 and 10.1 because of improper handling of user-supplied request parameters in the RestFilter servlet. An unauthenticated remote attacker can craft requests to the /h/rest endpoint to influence internal request dispatching, allowing inclusion of arbitrary files from the WebRoot directory.
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 confidenceAn unauthenticated LFI vulnerability in Zimbra ZCS 10.0-10.1 allows remote attackers to include arbitrary files from the WebRoot directory via crafted requests to the /h/rest endpoint by manipulating request parameters in the RestFilter servlet.
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>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.18>= 10.1.0, < 10.1.13CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 ZCS versionRun 'zmcontrol -v' or check /opt/zimbra/.version file to determine installed Zimbra Collaboration Suite versionAffected if Version is 10.0.0 through 10.0.17, or 10.1.0 through 10.1.12 (not yet patched to 10.0.18 or 10.1.13)
-
Confirm Webmail Classic UI is accessibleAttempt to access the /h/rest endpoint via browser or curl: curl -k https://TARGET/h/rest -IAffected if The /h/rest endpoint responds, indicating the RestFilter servlet is active and accessible to unauthenticated users
You are affected if your ZCS version is 10.0.0-10.0.17 or 10.1.0-10.1.12 AND the Webmail Classic UI with the /h/rest endpoint is publicly accessible.
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 · scoped10.0.1810.1.13
Apply vendor patch for CVE-2025-68645 immediately; implement strict input validation on the RestFilter servlet to sanitize request parameters and prevent path traversal.
Zimbra Collaboration Suite 10.0.18 or 10.1.13 (both contain the fix)
- Review Zimbra release notes for versions 10.0.18 and 10.1.13 to understand changes and confirm fixes
- Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade procedure
- Perform a full backup of the current Zimbra installation, including configuration and mail stores
- Test the upgrade in a non-production (staging) environment before applying to production
- Apply the upgrade to Zimbra Collaboration Suite, targeting version 10.0.18 or 10.1.13
- Verify the RestFilter servlet fix by confirming that the /h/rest endpoint no longer allows arbitrary file inclusion from the WebRoot directory
- Validate that all Zimbra services start correctly and mail flow is operational post-upgrade
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-2025-68645 — 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-2025-68645 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