CVE-2025-7216
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 vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in lty628 Aidigu up to 1.8.2. This affects the function checkUserCookie of the file /application/common.php of the component PHP Object Handler. The manipulation of the argument rememberMe leads to deserialization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 a PHP Object Injection vulnerability in the checkUserCookie function of /application/common.php in the Aidigu application. The function deserializes user-controlled data from the rememberMe cookie without proper validation, allowing remote attackers to inject malicious PHP objects and potentially achieve remote code execution via gadget chains.
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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Locate the vulnerable fileFind /application/common.php in the Aidigu installation directoryAffected if The file exists and contains the checkUserCookie function
-
Identify the rememberMe cookie handlingSearch the common.php file for the checkUserCookie function and examine how it processes the rememberMe cookie parameterAffected if The function retrieves and uses the rememberMe cookie value without HMAC validation
-
Detect unsafe deserializationLook for unserialize() calls within checkUserCookie that operate on $_COOKIE['rememberMe'] or similar user-supplied inputAffected if unserialize() is called directly on cookie data without prior validation
-
Verify cookie is user-controlledConfirm the rememberMe cookie value comes from user input (client-side) rather than being generated server-side with cryptographic signaturesAffected if The cookie value is directly passed to unserialize without signature verification
-
Confirm application is using vulnerable code pathCheck if the application actually invokes checkUserCookie during authentication or session handlingAffected if checkUserCookie is called and the rememberMe feature is active
A user is affected if their Aidigu installation has the vulnerable checkUserCookie function in /application/common.php that uses unsafe unserialize() on the rememberMe cookie without HMAC validation.
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 dataReplace unsafe unserialize() on the rememberMe cookie with safe alternatives like json_decode() with HMAC-signed cookies, or implement strict allowlist validation before any deserialization occurs.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA5.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,624.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-7216 — 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-2025-7216 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