OS Command InjectionWeakness · CWE-78

CVE-2025-9494

HIGH · 8.5 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-09-23
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
87/100
Remediation priority · High
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
An OS command injection vulnerability has been discovered in the Vitogate 300, which can be exploited by malicious users to compromise affected installations. Specifically, the `/cgi-bin/vitogate.cgi` endpoint is affected, when the `form` JSON parameter is set to `form-0-2`. The vulnerability stems from the fact that that function at offset 0x21c24 does not properly sanitize supplied input before interpolating it into a format string which gets passed to `popen()`. Consequently, an authenticated attacker is able to inject arbitrary OS commands and thus gain code execution on affected devices.

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 confidence

Vitogate 300 contains an OS command injection vulnerability in the /cgi-bin/vitogate.cgi endpoint. When the 'form' JSON parameter is set to 'form-0-2', the function at offset 0x21c24 fails to sanitize user input before passing it to popen() as a format string, allowing authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands.

MitigationApply vendor firmware patch when available; until then, restrict network access to the vitogate.cgi endpoint, enforce strong authentication, and consider deploying a WAF to filter malicious command injection payloads.

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
Adjacent
Complexity
Low
Privileges
High
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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 Vitogate 300 presence
    Check your network inventory or asset management system for Vitogate 300 devices or confirm the device model via its web interface login page
    Affected if Vitogate 300 is present in your environment
  2. Locate the vulnerable CGI endpoint
    Scan your Vitogate 300 web server for the existence of /cgi-bin/vitogate.cgi - check if the endpoint responds to HTTP requests
    Affected if The /cgi-bin/vitogate.cgi endpoint is accessible and responds
  3. Verify the vulnerable parameter is accepted
    Send a POST request to /cgi-bin/vitogate.cgi with a JSON body containing "form":"form-0-2" - observe whether the endpoint accepts and processes this parameter
    Affected if The endpoint accepts the 'form' parameter with value 'form-0-2' without rejecting it
  4. Confirm authentication is enforced
    Review access logs or authentication configuration on the Vitogate 300 to determine whether the CGI endpoint requires valid credentials
    Affected if The endpoint permits access without requiring authentication, or authentication can be bypassed
  5. Check for command injection indicators
    Review web server logs for unusual output, unexpected file creation, or abnormal process execution originating from the vitogate.cgi endpoint
    Affected if Logs show unexpected command execution, shell output, or anomalous system calls tied to the CGI script

You are affected if you have a Vitogate 300 device with the /cgi-bin/vitogate.cgi endpoint accessible and the 'form-0-2' parameter is processed without proper input sanitization.

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

Apply vendor firmware patch when available; until then, restrict network access to the vitogate.cgi endpoint, enforce strong authentication, and consider deploying a WAF to filter malicious command injection payloads.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,500
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-9494 — 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-2025-9494 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