Code InjectionWeakness · CWE-94

CVE-2025-9120

HIGH · 8.6 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-02-24
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
91/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') vulnerability in OpenText™ Carbonite Safe Server Backup allows Code Injection.  The vulnerability could be exploited through an open port, potentially allowing unauthorized access. This issue affects Carbonite Safe Server Backup: through 6.8.3.

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 confidence

A code injection vulnerability in OpenText Carbonite Safe Server Backup versions through 6.8.3 allows attackers to inject and execute arbitrary code through an exposed network port. The high CVSS score (8.6) indicates the vulnerability is remotely exploitable and can lead to complete system compromise, potentially allowing attackers to gain unauthorized access to the backup server and its data.

MitigationUpgrade Carbonite Safe Server Backup to the latest version beyond 6.8.3 once available, and restrict network access to the vulnerable port through firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure.

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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if Carbonite Safe Server Backup is installed
    Check for the presence of Carbonite Safe Server Backup by looking for its installation directory (commonly in Program Files or Program Files x86), checking the Windows services list for 'Carbonite' or 'Carbonite Safe Server Backup' service, or using PowerShell: Get-Service | Where-Object {$_.DisplayName -like '*Carbonite*'}
    Affected if The software is found installed on the system
  2. Determine the installed version
    Open the Carbonite Safe Server Backup application and navigate to Help > About, or check the version in the Windows Programs and Features list, or look for a version file in the installation directory
    Affected if The version is 6.8.3 or any earlier version (versions through 6.8.3 are affected)
  3. Identify network listeners and exposed ports
    Use netstat or PowerShell to list listening ports: netstat -an | findstr LISTENING, or Get-NetTCPConnection -State Listen. Identify which port the Carbonite backup service uses (typically ports in the 10000-50000 range for backup services)
    Affected if The Carbonite backup service port is listening on a network-facing interface (0.0.0.0 or external IP rather than 127.0.0.1)
  4. Verify remote access exposure
    Check firewall rules and network configuration to determine if the backup service port is accessible from outside the local machine. Use PowerShell to check firewall rules: Get-NetFirewallRule | Where-Object {$_.DisplayName -like '*Carbonite*'}
    Affected if The Carbonite service port is exposed to untrusted network segments or the internet without restriction

A system is affected if Carbonite Safe Server Backup is installed with version 6.8.3 or earlier AND the backup service port is exposed to the network.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade Carbonite Safe Server Backup to the latest version beyond 6.8.3 once available, and restrict network access to the vulnerable port through firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
26.0 hours of engineering $4,560
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,296.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-9120 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-9120 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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