VulnerabilityPublished 17 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-68109: ChurchCRM CRM · OS Command Injection

Affects ChurchCRM CRMSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available (Metasploit) · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 6.5.3 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 1.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 74% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.5.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: 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: 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 17 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
1 Metasploit module
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 churchcrm/CRM to 6.5.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubchurchcrm/CRM`pkg:github/churchcrm/CRM`Other threats	Affected <6.5.3	Fixed in 6.5.3

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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation involves upgrading ChurchCRM installations to version 6.5.3 or later, which contains the necessary patches to validate file uploads properly. Organizations should enforce strict access controls to limit who can perform database restores and upload files, ideally restricting this functionality to trusted administrators only. Implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block web shell signatures and suspicious file uploads can provide additional protection. Regularly audit file upload directories for unauthorized files such as .htaccess or web shells. Employ network segmentation to isolate CRM servers from critical infrastructure and sensitive data stores. Monitoring server logs and file system changes can help detect early signs of exploitation. Additionally, enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrative access reduces the risk of credential compromise. Backup strategies should be reviewed to ensure quick recovery in case of compromise. Finally, educating administrators about the risks of improper file uploads and maintaining up-to-date software versions is essential.

Description

ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. In versions prior to 6.5.3, the Database Restore functionality does not validate the content or file extension of uploaded files. As a result, an attacker can upload a web shell file and subsequently upload a .htaccess file to enable direct access to it. Once accessed, the uploaded web shell allows remote code execution (RCE) on the server. Version 6.5.3 fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations using ChurchCRM, this vulnerability poses a critical risk. Successful exploitation can lead to full remote code execution on servers hosting the CRM, potentially exposing sensitive personal data of church members and staff, disrupting church operations, and enabling further lateral movement within the network. The compromise of such systems could also lead to reputational damage and legal consequences under GDPR due to unauthorized access to personal data. Given that the vulnerability requires authenticated access, insider threats or compromised credentials could be leveraged by attackers. The ability to upload web shells and execute arbitrary commands could allow attackers to deploy ransomware, steal data, or establish persistent backdoors. The impact extends beyond individual churches to any affiliated organizations relying on ChurchCRM for member management and communication, making it a significant concern for religious institutions across Europe.

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).
CWE-434Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #12OWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Architecture and Design
Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Web Service Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
V12.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-494Download of Code Without Integrity Check (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
Implementation
Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.2 (opens in a new tab)
V10.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Malicious Software Download (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Software Update (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Automated Software Update via Redirection (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Manual Software Update (opens in a new tab)
Open-Source Library Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-552Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product makes files or directories accessible to unauthorized actors, even though they should not be.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V12.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Collect Data from Common Resource Locations (opens in a new tab)
Probe System Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/ChurchCRM/CRM/security/advisories/GHSA-pqm7-g8px-9r77 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 24 Dec 2025, 22:55 UTC

Public exploits and detection1 Metasploit module

WeaknessesCWE-78, CWE-434, CWE-494 +2

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats