CVE-2025-13699VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jan 2026Updated 2 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: mariadb:10.3 security update

Affects Red Hat mariadb:10.3Source GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 02:43 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 1 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated mariadb:10.3 packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 that fix this vulnerability. Users should apply the security update as described in the Red Hat advisory RHSA-2026:0304 and the referenced article https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258 to remediate the issue. No additional mitigations are specified or required beyond applying the official patch.

Description

A security vulnerability (CVE-2025-13699) affects the mariadb-dump utility in MariaDB 10.3, allowing remote code execution due to improper path validation. This issue was addressed by Red Hat in an important security update for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6. The vulnerability relates to a path traversal weakness (CWE-22) in the mariadb-dump tool. No CVSS score is provided, but the severity is rated high by the source. Red Hat has released updated packages to fix this issue.

Impact

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected system via the mariadb-dump utility. This could lead to full system compromise depending on the privileges of the mariadb-dump process. The issue is classified as high severity by Red Hat, indicating significant risk to affected systems.

Summary

The mariadb-dump utility in MariaDB 10.3 is vulnerable to remote code execution caused by improper path validation, identified as CVE-2025-13699. This vulnerability allows an attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code remotely by exploiting path traversal flaws. Red Hat issued an important security advisory (RHSA-2026:0304) providing updated packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 to remediate this issue. The advisory references the CVE page for additional details and confirms the fix is included in the updated mariadb:10.3 module packages.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Nov 2026, 02:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats