CVE-2025-59689
Command Injection in Libraesva Email Security Gateway 4.5 – 5.0.31
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-59689 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Libraesva Email Security Gateway. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 22% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities 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.
CVE-2025-59689 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-77) in Libraesva ESG versions 4.5 through 5.5.x prior to 5.5.7. The issue arises from inadequate handling of compressed email attachments, enabling attackers to inject and execute arbitrary commands on the affected system.
A remote unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity by sending a malicious compressed email attachment to a target running a vulnerable ESG instance. Exploitation requires user interaction, such as processing or scanning the attachment, after which the attacker gains low-level confidentiality and integrity impacts with a changed scope, as reflected in the CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N).
Libraesva advisories detail patches for affected branches: version 5.0.31 for ESG 5.0, 5.1.20 for 5.1, 5.2.31 for 5.2, 5.4.8 for 5.4, and 5.5.7 for 5.5. Security teams should apply these updates immediately and review the vendor's knowledgebase advisory at https://docs.libraesva.com/knowledgebase/security-advisory-command-injection-vulnerability-cve-2025-59689/ and security blog at https://www.libraesva.com/security-blog/ for implementation guidance.
The vulnerability appears in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog (https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2025-59689), indicating active real-world exploitation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-30249
Vulnerability Data
Libraesva ESG 4.5 through 5.5.x before 5.5.7 allows command injection via a compressed e-mail attachment. For ESG 5.0 a fix has been released in 5.0.31. For ESG 5.1 a fix has been released in 5.1.20. For ESG 5.2 a fix…
more
has been released in 5.2.31. For ESG 5.4 a fix has been released in 5.4.8. For ESG 5.5. a fix has been released in 5.5.7.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 29 September 2025
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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 input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.