VulnerabilityPublished 6 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-12488: oobabooga text-generation-webui · Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision

Affects oobabooga text-generation-webuiSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

9.8Critical

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHuboobabooga/text-generation-webui`pkg:github/oobabooga/text-generation-webui`Other threats	Affected =2.5	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to the oobabooga text-generation-webui load endpoint, ideally by placing it behind a firewall or VPN accessible only to trusted users.
Disable or avoid using the 'trust_remote_code' parameter until a secure patch is released. If dynamic model loading is necessary, implement strict validation and whitelisting of trusted models and sources.
Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual requests targeting the load endpoint or attempts to exploit the trust_remote_code parameter.
Employ application-layer security controls such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious payloads.
Isolate the service account running the web UI with minimal privileges and consider running the application in a sandboxed or containerized environment to limit the blast radius of potential exploitation.
Stay updated with vendor advisories and apply patches promptly once available.
Conduct security awareness training for administrators managing AI infrastructure to recognize and respond to exploitation attempts.
Consider implementing network segmentation to separate AI services from critical enterprise systems.

Description

oobabooga text-generation-webui trust_remote_code Reliance on Untrusted Inputs Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of oobabooga text-generation-webui. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of the trust_remote_code parameter provided to the load endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied argument before using it to load a model. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. . Was ZDI-CAN-26680.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a critical risk, especially for those leveraging AI text-generation services in production or research environments. Successful exploitation can lead to complete system takeover, allowing attackers to exfiltrate sensitive data, manipulate AI model outputs, or disrupt services. This can result in loss of intellectual property, violation of data protection regulations such as GDPR, reputational damage, and operational downtime. Organizations in sectors like finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure that adopt AI technologies are particularly vulnerable. The unauthenticated nature of the exploit increases the likelihood of attacks originating from external threat actors, including cybercriminals and nation-state actors. Additionally, the lack of available patches means organizations must rely on compensating controls, increasing operational complexity and risk. The potential for cascading effects exists if compromised systems are integrated into larger networks or cloud environments, amplifying the threat impact.

CWE-807Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Nov 2025, 20:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-807

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats