CVE-2025-54236
Adobe Commerce 2.4.4 … 2.4.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-54236 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Adobe Commerce. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 0.2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities 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.
Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.9-alpha2, 2.4.8-p2, 2.4.7-p7, 2.4.6-p12, 2.4.5-p14, 2.4.4-p15 and earlier are affected by an Improper Input Validation vulnerability tracked as CVE-2025-54236. The flaw, assigned CWE-20, permits an attacker to perform session takeover with high impact on confidentiality and integrity. The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.1 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no requirements for authentication or user interaction.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the vulnerability without any user interaction to hijack active sessions in affected Adobe Commerce installations, thereby gaining unauthorized access that elevates both confidentiality and integrity risks.
Adobe has published remediation guidance under APSB25-88, and the vulnerability appears in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, indicating that official patches and mitigation steps are available through standard Adobe Commerce update channels.
The associated EPSS score currently stands at 0.7215 with a recorded peak of 0.7372, and public references include technical analyses describing unauthenticated remote code execution potential in Magento deployments.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-27277
Vulnerability Data
Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.9-alpha2, 2.4.8-p2, 2.4.7-p7, 2.4.6-p12, 2.4.5-p14, 2.4.4-p15 and earlier are affected by an Improper Input Validation vulnerability. A successful attacker can abuse this to achieve session takeover, increasing the confidentiality, and integrity impact to high. Exploitation of this…
more
issue does not require user interaction.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 24 October 2025
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
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.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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.
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