CVE-2025-49554VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2025Updated 13 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-49554: Adobe Commerce · Improper Input Validation

Affects Adobe CommerceSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 12 Aug 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 2026-10-25.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Adobe Adobe Commerce	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of a publicly available patch, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls to reduce exposure. These include deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block anomalous or malformed input patterns targeting Adobe Commerce endpoints. Network-level rate limiting and IP reputation filtering can help mitigate automated attack attempts. Organizations should monitor application logs and network traffic for signs of exploitation attempts, such as repeated crashes or unusual input patterns. Segmentation of the e-commerce environment from other critical infrastructure can limit the blast radius of a successful DoS attack. Additionally, organizations should prepare incident response plans specific to Adobe Commerce service disruptions, including failover strategies and communication plans. Once Adobe releases an official patch, prompt testing and deployment are essential. Regular backups and redundancy in hosting infrastructure can also minimize downtime impact. Finally, engaging with Adobe support and subscribing to security advisories will ensure timely awareness of updates and fixes.

Description

Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.9-alpha1, 2.4.8-p1, 2.4.7-p6, 2.4.6-p11, 2.4.5-p13, 2.4.4-p14 and earlier are affected by an Improper Input Validation vulnerability that could lead to application denial-of-service. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing specially crafted input, causing the application to crash or become unresponsive. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-49554 can be substantial. Adobe Commerce powers many online retail platforms, and a successful denial-of-service attack could disrupt business operations, leading to loss of sales, damage to brand reputation, and customer dissatisfaction. The unavailability of e-commerce services during peak shopping periods or promotional events could have significant financial consequences. Additionally, prolonged downtime may affect supply chain operations and customer trust. Since the vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, data breaches are not a direct concern; however, the operational disruption alone is critical for businesses relying on continuous online presence. The fact that exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction increases the risk of automated attacks targeting vulnerable systems. European organizations with limited incident response capabilities or those slow to apply mitigations may face extended outages. Furthermore, regulatory frameworks such as the GDPR emphasize service availability and business continuity, so failure to mitigate this vulnerability could also have compliance implications.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

helpx.adobe.com/security/products/magento/apsb25-71.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Aug 2025, 02:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats