VulnerabilityPublished 29 Sep 2025Updated 28 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-57516: PublicCMS PublicCMS-V5 · OS Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 66% 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:L/I:H/A:N

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

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: 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 impacted component.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Sep 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 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-57516, organizations should immediately restrict access to the backupDB.bat script to trusted administrators and systems only, using file system permissions and network segmentation. Implement strict input validation and sanitization for DATABASE, USERNAME, and PASSWORD variables to prevent injection of malicious commands; this includes whitelisting allowed characters and rejecting suspicious inputs. Employ application-layer firewalls or intrusion prevention systems to detect and block anomalous command injection attempts targeting backup processes. Monitor logs for unusual execution patterns or errors related to backupDB.bat. Until official patches are released, consider disabling automated backup scripts or replacing them with secure alternatives that do not rely on unsanitized input. Conduct thorough code reviews and security testing on all scripts handling external inputs. Maintain up-to-date backups stored offline or in immutable storage to ensure recovery capability in case of compromise. Finally, stay informed through PublicCMS security advisories and apply patches promptly once available.

Description

OS Command injection vulnerability in PublicCMS PublicCMS-V5.202506.a, and PublicCMS-V5.202506.b allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands via crafted DATABASE, USERNAME, or PASSWORD variables to the backupDB.bat file.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of CVE-2025-57516 could result in unauthorized command execution on servers running vulnerable PublicCMS versions, leading to potential data manipulation or destruction during backup operations. This compromises the integrity of critical content and backup data, undermining recovery efforts and trustworthiness of stored information. Attackers could leverage this foothold to move laterally within networks, escalate privileges, or exfiltrate sensitive data, impacting confidentiality. Given that PublicCMS is used in various sectors including government, education, and private enterprises, the disruption could affect service continuity and regulatory compliance, especially under GDPR mandates concerning data integrity and protection. The absence of required authentication and user interaction lowers the barrier for attackers, increasing the likelihood of exploitation. Additionally, compromised backup processes can hinder incident response and recovery, prolonging downtime and increasing remediation costs. The threat is particularly severe for organizations relying heavily on automated backup scripts without additional security controls. Overall, the vulnerability poses a significant risk to operational security and data governance in European contexts.

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

github.com/sanluan/PublicCMS/issues/97 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Oct 2025, 20:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats