CVE-2025-6335
Command Injection in Dedecms ≤ 5.7.2
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-6335 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dedecms Dedecms. Its CVSS base score is 2.0 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 7% 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.
A vulnerability identified as CVE-2025-6335 exists in DedeCMS versions up to 5.7.2 and is present in the Template Handler component within the file /include/dedetag.class.php. The issue stems from improper handling of the notes argument, which permits command injection and is tracked under CWE-74 and CWE-77. It received a CVSS 4.0 score of 2.0 reflecting high attack complexity requirements despite remote reachability.
An authenticated attacker with administrative privileges can supply crafted input to the affected parameter over the network, resulting in execution of arbitrary commands on the server. The exploit code has already been published, enabling potential reuse by threat actors who obtain the necessary credentials.
Public references consist of a GitHub disclosure and multiple Vuldb entries that document the flaw and proof-of-concept details, but no vendor advisory or patch information is provided in the available sources. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0102 with no observed increase since publication.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28719
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in DedeCMS up to 5.7.2 and classified as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /include/dedetag.class.php of the component Template Handler. The manipulation of the argument notes leads to command injection. The attack…
more
may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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 output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.