CVE-2025-0798
RCE in Escanav Escan Anti-Virus 7.0.32
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-0798 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Escanav Escan Anti-Virus. Its CVSS base score is 9.2 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 7% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
A vulnerability rated critical has been identified in MicroWorld eScan Antivirus version 7.0.32 on Linux, specifically within the Quarantine Handler component's rtscanner file. The flaw stems from improper handling that permits OS command injection, corresponding to CWE-77 and CWE-78, and carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 9.2 reflecting high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability despite high attack complexity.
Remote attackers without authentication can exploit the issue to execute arbitrary operating system commands, though successful exploitation requires significant effort and the attack vector is considered difficult. Public disclosure of an exploit has occurred, enabling potential reuse by threat actors.
No vendor patch or official advisory has been issued, as MicroWorld did not respond to early disclosure notifications; the provided references consist of a detailed technical write-up and exploit documentation hosted on GitHub along with Vuldb entries.
The associated EPSS score has risen from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0313, indicating emerging exploitation interest after public release and suggesting the CVE merits renewed monitoring.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-1872
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in MicroWorld eScan Antivirus 7.0.32 on Linux. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file rtscanner of the component Quarantine Handler. The manipulation leads to os command injection. The…
more
attack may be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- 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
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
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 in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
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.