Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-58180 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Octoprint Octoprint. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 3% 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
OctoPrint is a web interface for controlling consumer 3D printers, and versions up to and including 1.11.2 contain a command injection vulnerability tracked as CVE-2025-58180 and CWE-78. An authenticated attacker can upload a file whose specially crafted filename is later interpolated into a system command defined inside a configured event handler; when the associated event fires, the filename causes arbitrary command execution on the host. The flaw has no impact unless administrators have explicitly created event handlers that pass uploaded filenames as parameters to shell commands.
An attacker with a valid OctoPrint account can therefore achieve remote code execution on the printer host by uploading the malicious file and then triggering the relevant event. The CVSS 4.0 score of 7.5 reflects the need for an existing event-handler configuration and local network adjacency, yet still grants high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability once the condition is met.
The official advisory and release notes for version 1.11.3 recommend upgrading immediately. As interim controls, administrators should either disable any filename-using event handlers or set feature.enforceReallyUniversalFilenames to true in config.yaml, followed by a restart and manual review of existing uploads to remove suspicious files. The project also reiterates that instances should never be exposed to untrusted networks and that access should be restricted to trusted users.
EPSS remains flat at 0.0222 with no material increase after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-27483
Vulnerability Data
OctoPrint provides a web interface for controlling consumer 3D printers. OctoPrint versions up until and including 1.11.2 contain a vulnerability that allows an authenticated attacker to upload a file under a specially crafted filename that will allow arbitrary command execution…
more
if said filename becomes included in a command defined in a system event handler and said event gets triggered. If no event handlers executing system commands with uploaded filenames as parameters have been configured, this vulnerability does not have an impact. The vulnerability is patched in version 1.11.3. As a workaround, OctoPrint administrators who have event handlers configured that include any kind of filename based placeholders should disable those by setting their `enabled` property to `False` or unchecking the "Enabled" checkbox in the GUI based Event Manager. Alternatively, OctoPrint administrators should set `feature.enforceReallyUniversalFilenames` to `true` in `config.yaml` and restart OctoPrint, then vet the existing uploads and make sure to delete any suspicious looking files. As always, OctoPrint administrators are advised to not expose OctoPrint on hostile networks like the public internet, and to vet who has access to their instance.
- 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.