CVE-2025-13699VulnerabilityPublished 17 Apr 2026Updated 2 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Hardened Images RPMs bug fix and enhancement update

Affects Red HatSource 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 17 Apr 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 currently does not provide a mitigation that meets their criteria for ease of use, deployment, applicability, or stability. Users are advised to monitor Red Hat advisories for future updates or fixes.

Description

A vulnerability in MariaDB's mariadb-dump utility allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of user-supplied paths. Exploitation requires user interaction with the mariadb-dump utility. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the current user. No mitigation currently meets Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, deployment, or applicability.

Impact

The vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations via the mariadb-dump utility. Exploitation requires user interaction. If successfully exploited, arbitrary code execution occurs with the privileges of the current user, potentially compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Summary

CVE-2025-13699 is a vulnerability in the mariadb-dump utility of MariaDB, where improper validation of user-supplied paths before file operations can lead to remote code execution. The flaw requires user interaction and affects Red Hat's MariaDB packages. Red Hat has classified this vulnerability as high severity and has not provided a mitigation that meets their standards. The vulnerability is tracked under CWE-22 (Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory).

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