Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-58763 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Tautulli Tautulli. Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 25% 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-27562
Vulnerability Data
Tautulli is a Python based monitoring and tracking tool for Plex Media Server. A command injection vulnerability in Tautulli v2.15.3 and prior allows attackers with administrative privileges to obtain remote code execution on the application server. This vulnerability requires the…
more
application to have been cloned from GitHub and installed manually. When Tautulli is cloned directly from GitHub and installed manually, the application manages updates and versioning through calls to the `git` command. In the code, this is performed through the `runGit` function in `versioncheck.py`. Since `shell=True` is passed to `subproces.Popen`, this call is vulnerable to subject to command injection, as shell characters within arguments will be passed to the underlying shell. A concrete location where this can be triggered is in the `checkout_git_branch` endpoint. This endpoint stores a user-supplied remote and branch name into the `GIT_REMOTE` and `GIT_BRANCH` configuration keys without sanitization. Downstream, these keys are then fetched and passed directly into `runGit` using a format string. Hence, code execution can be obtained by using `$()` interpolation in a command. Version 2.16.0 contains a fix for the issue.
- 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.