CVE-2025-54416VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jul 2025Updated 28 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-54416: tj-actions branch-names · Command Injection

Affects tj-actions branch-namesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 9.0.0 as a priority.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.0.0

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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 on the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade tj-actions/branch-names to 9.0.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubtj-actions/branch-names`pkg:github/tj-actions/branch-names`Other threats	Affected <9.0.0	Fixed in 9.0.0

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their GitHub repositories and workflows to identify usage of tj-actions/branch-names versions below 9.0.0. The primary mitigation is to upgrade to version 9.0.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Beyond upgrading, organizations should implement strict input validation and sanitization on all user-controlled inputs, including branch and tag names, within their workflows. Employing workflow-level security best practices such as least privilege principles for GitHub tokens, restricting workflow triggers to trusted contributors, and enabling branch protection rules can reduce the attack surface. Additionally, organizations should monitor CI/CD logs for unusual command executions or unexpected workflow behavior. Implementing automated dependency scanning tools that detect vulnerable GitHub Actions can help maintain ongoing security hygiene. Finally, consider isolating critical workflows in separate repositories or environments to limit potential blast radius if exploitation occurs.

Description

tj-actions/branch-names is a Github actions repository that contains workflows to retrieve branch or tag names with support for all events. In versions 8.2.1 and below, a critical vulnerability has been identified in the tj-actions/branch-names' GitHub Action workflow which allows arbitrary command execution in downstream workflows. This issue arises due to inconsistent input sanitization and unescaped output, enabling malicious actors to exploit specially crafted branch names or tags. While internal sanitization mechanisms have been implemented, the action outputs remain vulnerable, exposing consuming workflows to significant security risks. This is fixed in version 9.0.0

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity and confidentiality of their software development lifecycle. Organizations relying on GitHub Actions for CI/CD automation that incorporate the vulnerable tj-actions/branch-names workflow may inadvertently execute malicious commands embedded in branch or tag names. This can lead to unauthorized code execution, data leakage, or disruption of build and deployment processes. Given the widespread adoption of GitHub and GitHub Actions across European enterprises, especially in technology, finance, and critical infrastructure sectors, exploitation could result in intellectual property theft, compromise of sensitive customer data, or sabotage of production environments. The vulnerability's ability to escalate privileges within workflows means that even users with limited repository permissions could trigger severe consequences. Additionally, the interconnected nature of modern DevOps pipelines means that a single compromised workflow could cascade into broader organizational impact, affecting compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended 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.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (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
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (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 3 Aug 2025, 00:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats