Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-39362 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Fedoraproject Fedora. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 0.4% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Cacti 1.2.24 contains a command-injection vulnerability in the SNMP handling routines located in lib/snmp.php. Several functions accept values supplied through a device’s SNMP options and insert them directly into operating-system exec calls without escaping or validation, enabling an attacker to break out of the intended command and execute arbitrary shell instructions on the underlying host.
An authenticated user holding administrative privileges on the Cacti instance can exploit the flaw by placing a suitably crafted string in the SNMP options field of any monitored device. Successful injection yields remote code execution with the privileges of the Cacti process, giving the attacker full control over the monitoring server.
The vulnerability is resolved in Cacti 1.2.25; the project advisory states there are no workarounds and explicitly recommends upgrading. Downstream distributions including Debian LTS and Fedora have published corresponding package updates that apply the same fix. The EPSS score for the issue is currently 0.8723, and public proof-of-concept code has been posted to Packet Storm.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-43088
Vulnerability Data
Cacti is an open source operational monitoring and fault management framework. In Cacti 1.2.24, under certain conditions, an authenticated privileged user, can use a malicious string in the SNMP options of a Device, performing command injection and obtaining remote code…
more
execution on the underlying server. The `lib/snmp.php` file has a set of functions, with similar behavior, that accept in input some variables and place them into an `exec` call without a proper escape or validation. This issue has been addressed in version 1.2.25. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.