Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2025-66224 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Orangehrm Orangehrm. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 43th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.
CVE-2025-66224 is an input neutralization vulnerability (CWE-94) affecting OrangeHRM, an open-source human resource management system, in versions 5.0 through 5.7. The flaw resides in the application's mail configuration and delivery workflow, where user-controlled values are incorporated unsanitized into OS-level sendmail commands. This allows attackers to invoke unintended sendmail behaviors, such as writing files to the server filesystem during email processing. Published on 2025-11-29, the vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Attackers require low privileges, such as those of an authenticated OrangeHRM user, to exploit the issue remotely with low complexity and no user interaction. By manipulating inputs in the mail-sending logic, they can cause the application to write arbitrary files on the server as part of the mail-handling routine. In deployments where these files land in web-accessible locations, attackers can achieve execution of their controlled content, resulting in high-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability compromises, including potential remote code execution.
OrangeHRM has patched the vulnerability in version 5.8. Additional details on the fix and affected configurations are available in the GitHub Security Advisory at https://github.com/orangehrm/orangehrm/security/advisories/GHSA-2w7w-h5wv-xr55.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-199907
Vulnerability Data
OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application contains an input-neutralization flaw in its mail configuration and delivery workflow that allows user-controlled values to flow directly into the system’s sendmail command. Because…
more
these values are not sanitized or constrained before being incorporated into the command execution path, certain sendmail behaviors can be unintentionally invoked during email processing. This makes it possible for the application to write files on the server as part of the mail-handling routine, and in deployments where those files end up in web-accessible locations, the behavior can be leveraged to achieve execution of attacker-controlled content. The issue stems entirely from constructing OS-level command strings using unsanitized input within the mail-sending logic. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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 target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.