Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-68109 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Churchcrm Churchcrm. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 29% 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — 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-2025-68109 affects ChurchCRM, an open-source church management system, in versions prior to 6.5.3. The vulnerability resides in the Database Restore functionality, which fails to validate the content or file extension of uploaded files. This flaw enables attackers to upload malicious files, such as a web shell, and a supporting .htaccess file to bypass restrictions and gain direct access, ultimately leading to remote code execution (RCE) on the server. The issue is rated with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H) and is associated with CWEs including CWE-78 (OS Command Injection), CWE-434 (Unrestricted Upload), CWE-494 (Download of Code Without Integrity Check), CWE-552 (Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties), and CWE-915 (Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes).
Exploitation requires high privileges (PR:H), such as administrative access within the ChurchCRM application, accessible over the network with low complexity and no user interaction. A privileged attacker can leverage the Database Restore feature to upload a web shell file, followed by a .htaccess file to enable its execution via direct web access. Successful exploitation grants RCE, allowing full compromise of the server with high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts, particularly due to the changed scope (S:C).
The GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-pqm7-g8px-9r77) confirms that ChurchCRM version 6.5.3 addresses the vulnerability by implementing proper validation of uploaded files in the Database Restore functionality. Security practitioners should upgrade to version 6.5.3 or later and review access controls for privileged users.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-203990
Vulnerability Data
ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. In versions prior to 6.5.3, the Database Restore functionality does not validate the content or file extension of uploaded files. As a result, an attacker can upload a web shell file and subsequently…
more
upload a .htaccess file to enable direct access to it. Once accessed, the uploaded web shell allows remote code execution (RCE) on the server. Version 6.5.3 fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 14 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
V5.1.1V8.4.2V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly enforces authorization checks on access to files and directories, stopping unauthorized external exposure.
Requires digital signature verification before component installation, directly stopping execution of code downloaded without integrity checks.
AC-6 limits granted privileges, reducing the chance that files or directories become reachable by external parties.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Malicious-code protection at entry points blocks dangerous file types from being accepted and executed.
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.
Directly requires assessing authenticity/integrity of software before acquisition and use, preventing unverified downloads.
Enforcing least-privilege permissions and authorization policies directly prevents unauthorized file/directory exposure.
Requires cryptographic integrity protections (signatures/hashes) for data-in-transit, covering downloaded code.
Logical segmentation and access protections stop external parties from reaching files that should remain internal.
Restricting execution of unauthorized software directly blocks dangerous uploaded files from running.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
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 explicitly forbid unsafe dynamic attribute assignment and require property allow-lists.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
By tracing and retrieving all copies of information stored on endpoint and portable devices, the control reduces the likelihood that files remain accessible outside the organization’s security perimeter.
Labeling information according to its sensitivity and specifying corresponding protection measures makes it less probable that files or directories containing sensitive content will be left accessible to external parties.
Mandating integrity checks, digital signatures, and origin tracing for ICT components directly reduces the chance that code or firmware lacking an integrity check will be accepted into the organisation’s environment.
Including asset location and ownership in the inventory, combined with secure disposal procedures, decreases the chance that files or directories remain accessible to external parties after they should have been removed or restricted.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (3 rules)
- V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-494
- V-248579 OL 8 must restrict access to the kernel message buffer. prevents CWE-552
- V-248597 There must be no "shosts.equiv" files on the OL 8 operating system. prevents CWE-552
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271524 OL 9 must check the GPG signature of software packages originating from external software repositories before installation. prevents CWE-494
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-494
- V-204448 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-494
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230264 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-494
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257820 RHEL 9 must check the GPG signature of software packages originating from external software repositories before installation. prevents CWE-494