Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-34334 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Audiocodes Fax Server. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 12% 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.
CVE-2025-34334 is an authenticated command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) with a CVSS score of 8.8 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) affecting AudioCodes Fax Server and Auto-Attendant IVR appliances in versions up to and including 2.6.23. The flaw exists in the fax test functionality implemented by AudioCodes_files/TestFax.php, where the application builds a faxsender command line using attacker-supplied parameters and passes it to GlobalUtils::RunBatchFile without proper validation or shell-argument sanitization. The resulting batch file is written to a temporary run directory and executed via a backend service running as NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM.
An authenticated attacker with access to the fax test interface can exploit this by crafting parameter values that inject additional shell commands into the generated batch file, enabling arbitrary command execution with SYSTEM privileges. Furthermore, the temporary run directory has overly permissive file system permissions, allowing a local low-privilege user on the server to modify pending batch files and achieve the same privilege escalation to SYSTEM.
Advisories from Pierre Kim and VulnCheck detail the vulnerability and its exploitation mechanics, while AudioCodes has published a product notice announcing end-of-service for the Auto-Attendant IVR solution. No patches are referenced for affected versions.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-198195
Vulnerability Data
AudioCodes Fax Server and Auto-Attendant IVR appliances versions up to and including 2.6.23 are vulnerable to an authenticated command injection in the fax test functionality implemented by AudioCodes_files/TestFax.php. When a fax "send" test is requested, the application builds a faxsender…
more
command line using attacker-supplied parameters and passes it to GlobalUtils::RunBatchFile without proper validation or shell-argument sanitization. The resulting batch file is written into a temporary run directory and then executed via a backend service that runs as NT AUTHORITY\\SYSTEM. An authenticated attacker with access to the fax test interface can craft parameter values that inject additional shell commands into the generated batch file, leading to arbitrary command execution with SYSTEM privileges. In addition, because the generated batch files reside in a location with overly permissive file system permissions, a local low-privilege user on the server can modify pending batch files to achieve the same elevation.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
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 require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.