CVE-2025-34393
Barracuda Rmm ≤ 2025.1.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2025-34393 is a critical-severity Unsafe Reflection (CWE-470) vulnerability in Barracuda Rmm. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Reflective Code Loading (T1620); ranked at the 50th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — 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-2025-34393 affects Barracuda Service Center, a component of the Barracuda RMM solution in versions prior to 2025.1.1. The vulnerability stems from improper verification of the name of an attacker-controlled WSDL service, resulting in insecure reflection. This flaw, classified under CWE-470 (Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code), enables remote code execution either through invocation of arbitrary methods or deserialization of untrusted types. It carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity.
The vulnerability is exploitable remotely over the network with low complexity, requiring no authentication, privileges, or user interaction. Any unauthenticated attacker with network access to the affected Barracuda Service Center instance can trigger insecure reflection by supplying a malicious WSDL service, leading to full remote code execution. Successful exploitation grants high-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability compromises within the unchanged security scope.
Advisories recommend upgrading to Barracuda RMM version 2025.1.1 or later, as detailed in the release notes available at the Barracuda download site. The Vulncheck advisory provides further technical analysis on the insecure reflection leading to RCE in Barracuda Service Center, while the official Barracuda RMM product page offers context on the solution's deployment.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-202446
Vulnerability Data
Barracuda Service Center, as implemented in the RMM solution, in versions prior to 2025.1.1, does not correctly verify the name of an attacker-controlled WSDL service, leading to insecure reflection. This can result in remote code execution through either invocation of…
more
arbitrary methods or deserialization of untrusted types.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops externally supplied class or method names from selecting improper code via reflection.
Enforces authorization checks on the code or classes ultimately invoked, blocking unauthorized selections even if reflection is used.
Limits privileges of any code reached through unsafe reflection, reducing blast radius without stopping the selection itself.
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 avoid introducing externally controlled class selection via reflection.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover unsafe reflection during code review or scanning.
Preventing execution of unauthorized code can block exploitation of unsafe reflection at runtime.
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 directly forbid unsafe reflection and require whitelisting or static alternatives.
Security testing can detect and block unsafe reflection patterns before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and design reviews that reduce unsafe reflection risks.
Application security requirements can explicitly prohibit or constrain reflection based on untrusted input.
Secure architecture principles discourage dynamic class loading from external data sources.
Access restrictions limit who can supply the malicious input but do not address the reflection flaw itself.