Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-54123 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Hoverfly Hoverfly. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 5% 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.
Hoverfly, an open source API simulation tool, contains a command injection vulnerability in versions 1.11.3 and earlier. The flaw resides in the middleware management endpoint at /api/v2/hoverfly/middleware and stems from insufficient input validation in middleware.go combined with unsafe command execution in local_middleware.go and immediate execution logic in hoverfly_service.go. This allows unauthenticated remote attackers to supply crafted input that is passed directly to system commands.
An attacker with network access to the vulnerable endpoint can upload malicious payloads or execute arbitrary commands, including reverse shells, under the privileges of the Hoverfly process. The issue carries a CVSS score of 9.8 and maps to CWE-20 and CWE-78, reflecting the absence of authentication or sanitization on a remotely reachable API.
The fix in version 1.12.0, introduced via commit 17e60a9bc78826deb4b782dca1c1abd3dbe60d40, disables the set-middleware API by default and updates documentation to highlight the security implications of exposing it. The EPSS score rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.6294, indicating that exploitation interest increased after public disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-27608
Vulnerability Data
Hoverfly is an open source API simulation tool. In versions 1.11.3 and prior, the middleware functionality in Hoverfly is vulnerable to command injection vulnerability at `/api/v2/hoverfly/middleware` endpoint due to insufficient validation and sanitization in user input. The vulnerability exists in…
more
the middleware management API endpoint `/api/v2/hoverfly/middleware`. This issue is born due to combination of three code level flaws: Insufficient Input Validation in middleware.go line 94-96; Unsafe Command Execution in local_middleware.go line 14-19; and Immediate Execution During Testing in hoverfly_service.go line 173. This allows an attacker to gain remote code execution (RCE) on any system running the vulnerable Hoverfly service. Since the input is directly passed to system commands without proper checks, an attacker can upload a malicious payload or directly execute arbitrary commands (including reverse shells) on the host server with the privileges of the Hoverfly process. Commit 17e60a9bc78826deb4b782dca1c1abd3dbe60d40 in version 1.12.0 disables the set middleware API by default, and subsequent changes to documentation make users aware of the security changes of exposing the set middleware API.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
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.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20