Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-2025-48385 is a high-severity External Control of File Name or Path (CWE-73) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data from Local System (T1005); ranked in the top 44% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-20678
Vulnerability Data
Git is a fast, scalable, distributed revision control system with an unusually rich command set that provides both high-level operations and full access to internals. When cloning a repository Git knows to optionally fetch a bundle advertised by the remote…
more
server, which allows the server-side to offload parts of the clone to a CDN. The Git client does not perform sufficient validation of the advertised bundles, which allows the remote side to perform protocol injection. This protocol injection can cause the client to write the fetched bundle to a location controlled by the adversary. The fetched content is fully controlled by the server, which can in the worst case lead to arbitrary code execution. The use of bundle URIs is not enabled by default and can be controlled by the bundle.heuristic config option. Some cases of the vulnerability require that the adversary is in control of where a repository will be cloned to. This either requires social engineering or a recursive clone with submodules. These cases can thus be avoided by disabling recursive clones. This vulnerability is fixed in v2.43.7, v2.44.4, v2.45.4, v2.46.4, v2.47.3, v2.48.2, v2.49.1, and v2.50.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2V1.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing can discover argument-injection flaws in command-construction code but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly rejects or sanitizes untrusted path strings before they reach filesystem operations.
Enforces authorization checks on the actual resource accessed, blocking unauthorized files even when a malicious path is supplied.
Least-privilege limits the set of files or directories any subject can affect, shrinking the blast radius of a path-control flaw.
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.
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 can detect path-traversal issues but does not itself implement preventive controls.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and path-handling controls that directly prevent external file/path manipulation.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against untrusted input influencing file operations.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe path construction but do not prescribe concrete file-name controls.
Secure coding standards require canonicalization, allow-listing, and bounds checks on file paths, directly eliminating CWE-73.
Information access restriction limits which files can be reached, indirectly reducing impact of path manipulation.