CVE-2025-66437
RCE in Frappe Erpnext ≤ 15.89.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-66437 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Frappe Erpnext. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Template Injection (T1221); ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-2025-66437 is a Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability in the get_address_display method of Frappe ERPNext through version 15.89.0. This method renders address templates using frappe.render_template() with a context derived from the address_dict parameter, which can be either a dictionary or a string referencing an Address document. Although ERPNext employs a custom Jinja2 SandboxedEnvironment, dangerous functions such as frappe.db.sql remain accessible via get_safe_globals().
An authenticated attacker with permission to create or modify an Address Template can inject arbitrary Jinja expressions into the template field. The attacker can then create an Address document with a matching country and invoke the get_address_display API endpoint using address_dict set to the address name string. This causes the system to render the malicious template with attacker-controlled data, resulting in server-side code execution or database information disclosure. 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) and maps to CWE-94 and CWE-1336.
Advisories providing additional details on the vulnerability are available at https://iamanc.github.io/post/erpnext-ssti-bug-4 and https://www.notion.so/SSTI-bug-4-239e6086eadc80aa9331fba874c674a5?source=copy_link.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-203389
Vulnerability Data
An SSTI (Server-Side Template Injection) vulnerability exists in the get_address_display method of Frappe ERPNext through 15.89.0. This function renders address templates using frappe.render_template() with a context derived from the address_dict parameter, which can be either a dictionary or a string…
more
referencing an Address document. Although ERPNext uses a custom Jinja2 SandboxedEnvironment, dangerous functions like frappe.db.sql remain accessible via get_safe_globals(). An authenticated attacker with permission to create or modify an Address Template can inject arbitrary Jinja expressions into the template field. By creating an Address document with a matching country, and then calling the get_address_display API with address_dict="address_name", the system will render the malicious template using attacker-controlled data. This leads to server-side code execution or database information disclosure.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.2V1.3.7V1.3.10V1.3.1
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.
Security engineering principles require use of safe templating APIs and proper escaping of external input.
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.
Security testing can detect template-injection flaws but does not itself implement neutralization controls.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and sanitization that directly prevents template-injection weaknesses.
Application security requirements explicitly call for neutralizing special elements in template engines.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of unsafe template processing but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.
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.