VulnerabilityPublished 30 Oct 2025Updated 30 Sep 2026

CVE-2025-34134: Nagios XI · OS Command Injection

Affects Nagios XISource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical : upgrade to 2024R1.4.2 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.4Critical

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

EPSS: 2.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 83% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2024R1.4.2

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

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

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: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; 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 Subsequent System (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 v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Oct 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

Upgrade Nagios XI to 2024R1.4.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
NagiosXI	Affected <2024R1.4.2	Fixed in 2024R1.4.2

AI-suggested

Immediately upgrade Nagios XI to version 2024R1.4.2 or later, where this vulnerability is patched.
Restrict administrative access to the Nagios XI BPI component by implementing strict access controls, such as network segmentation, VPN access, and multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all admin accounts.
Audit and monitor administrative activities within Nagios XI to detect any unauthorized or suspicious configuration changes, especially related to BPI parameters.
Harden the webroot directory permissions to prevent unauthorized file creation or modification by the web application user.
Employ web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block attempts to exploit this vulnerability, focusing on requests that manipulate BPI configuration parameters.
Regularly review and rotate administrative credentials, ensuring strong password policies and MFA enforcement.
Conduct internal penetration testing and vulnerability assessments to verify that no unauthorized file writes or code execution paths exist.
Maintain comprehensive logging and alerting on Nagios XI servers to quickly identify potential exploitation attempts.
Educate administrators on the risks of improper configuration and the importance of secure parameter handling within Nagios XI.
Consider isolating Nagios XI monitoring infrastructure from critical production systems to limit blast radius in case of compromise.

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2024R1.4.2 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the Business Process Intelligence (BPI) component. Insufficient validation and sanitization of administrator-controlled BPI configuration parameters (notably bpi_logfile and bpi_configfile) allow an authenticated administrative user to cause the product to create or overwrite files within the webroot and subsequently edit them via the BPI configuration editor. When such files carry executable extensions and are served by the web application, arbitrary code may be executed in the context of the web application user. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary command execution with the privileges of the Nagios XI web application user and can be leveraged to gain further control of the underlying host operating system.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk due to the widespread use of Nagios XI in enterprise IT infrastructure monitoring and management. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized remote code execution, allowing attackers to compromise monitoring systems, manipulate monitoring data, disrupt service availability, and potentially pivot to other internal systems. This could result in operational downtime, data breaches, and loss of trust in critical infrastructure monitoring. Given the high privileges required (administrative access), the threat is particularly severe in environments where administrative credentials are shared, weakly protected, or exposed to insider threats. The ability to overwrite files in the webroot and execute arbitrary code can also facilitate persistent backdoors or malware deployment. European organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and government, which rely heavily on Nagios XI for monitoring, are at increased risk of operational disruption and data compromise. The vulnerability's critical severity and network accessibility underscore the urgency for mitigation to prevent potential exploitation and cascading impacts on European digital infrastructure.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (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 17 Nov 2025, 18:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats