CVE-2025-32918VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jul 2025Updated 8 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-32918: Checkmk · Improper Neutralization of Delimiters

Affects CheckmkSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 2.4.0p6 : update Checkmk when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.4.0p6, 2.3.0p35, 2.2.0p44

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Jul 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 2026-10-26.

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 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

Upgrade Checkmk to 2.4.0p6, 2.3.0p35 or 2.2.0p44.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Checkmk GmbH Checkmk	Affected =2.4.0 =2.3.0 =2.2.0 =2.1.0 <2.4.0p6 <2.3.0p35 <2.2.0p44	Fixed in 2.4.0p6 2.3.0p35 2.2.0p44

AI-suggested

1. 2. Restrict access to the RestAPI autocomplete endpoint to only trusted and necessary users, minimizing the attack surface. 3. Implement strict role-based access controls (RBAC) to limit authenticated user privileges, ensuring that users with access to the vulnerable endpoint have minimal necessary permissions. 4. Monitor API usage logs for unusual or suspicious Livestatus command patterns that could indicate attempted exploitation. 5. Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure of the Checkmk RestAPI to internal networks or VPNs only. 6. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on API endpoints and input validation mechanisms. 7. If immediate patching is not possible, consider disabling the autocomplete feature in the RestAPI or applying custom input validation filters to neutralize delimiter injection attempts.

Description

Improper neutralization of Livestatus command delimiters in autocomplete endpoint within the RestAPI of Checkmk versions <2.4.0p6, <2.3.0p35, <2.2.0p44, and 2.1.0 (EOL) allows an authenticated user to inject arbitrary Livestatus commands.

Impact

For European organizations using Checkmk for infrastructure monitoring, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized manipulation of monitoring data or commands by authenticated users with limited privileges. Such manipulation could lead to inaccurate monitoring results, delayed detection of critical incidents, or false alerts, potentially impacting operational decision-making and incident response. While the vulnerability does not allow unauthenticated access or require user interaction, the ability to inject arbitrary Livestatus commands could be leveraged by insider threats or compromised accounts to disrupt monitoring services or exfiltrate sensitive monitoring data. In critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, finance, healthcare, and telecommunications, where monitoring accuracy and availability are paramount, exploitation could degrade service reliability or mask ongoing attacks. However, the medium severity and limited impact on confidentiality and availability suggest that the threat is moderate, but still significant enough to warrant prompt remediation to maintain trust in monitoring systems and prevent escalation.

CWE-140Improper Neutralization of Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.
Implementation · Input Validation
Developers should anticipate that delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

checkmk.com/werk/17987 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Jul 2025, 21:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-140

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats