Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-66399 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Cacti Cacti. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 5% 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.
CVE-2025-66399 is an input-validation vulnerability in the SNMP device configuration functionality of Cacti, an open source performance and fault management framework. Affecting versions prior to 1.2.29, the flaw allows an authenticated Cacti user to supply crafted SNMP community strings containing control characters, such as newlines. These inputs are accepted without sanitization, stored verbatim in the database, and later embedded into backend SNMP operations. The issue is classified under CWE-77 (Command Injection) with 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).
An attacker with authenticated access to Cacti, requiring only low privileges, can exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious SNMP community strings during device configuration. When Cacti performs subsequent SNMP operations, the unsanitized strings are passed to downstream SNMP tooling or wrappers. In environments where these tools interpret newline-separated tokens as command boundaries, the vulnerability enables unintended command execution with the privileges of the Cacti process, potentially leading to high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts over the network with low complexity and no user interaction.
The official GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-c7rr-2h93-7gjf) confirms the vulnerability is fixed in Cacti version 1.2.29 through improved input validation of SNMP community strings. Security practitioners should upgrade to 1.2.29 or later, review SNMP configurations for anomalous community strings, and consider restricting authenticated user permissions on SNMP device management functions as an interim mitigation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-200287
Vulnerability Data
Cacti is an open source performance and fault management framework. Prior to 1.2.29, there is an input-validation flaw in the SNMP device configuration functionality. An authenticated Cacti user can supply crafted SNMP community strings containing control characters (including newlines) that…
more
are accepted, stored verbatim in the database, and later embedded into backend SNMP operations. In environments where downstream SNMP tooling or wrappers interpret newline-separated tokens as command boundaries, this can lead to unintended command execution with the privileges of the Cacti process. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.29.
- CWE(s)
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.