Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-7624 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Sophos Firewall Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 6% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
An SQL injection vulnerability exists in the legacy transparent SMTP proxy component of Sophos Firewall. It affects all versions prior to 21.0 MR2 (21.0.2) when a quarantining policy is active for email and the appliance was upgraded from a release older than 21.0 GA. The flaw is tracked as CWE-89 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can exploit the issue over the network to achieve arbitrary code execution. No user interaction or credentials are required, and the attack surface is exposed whenever the vulnerable SMTP proxy configuration is in use.
The vendor advisory at https://www.sophos.com/en-us/security-advisories/sophos-sa-20250721-sfos-rce identifies the fixed release as Sophos Firewall 21.0 MR2 and states that earlier versions should be updated to eliminate the vulnerability. The associated EPSS score remains low and unchanged at 0.0118 with no observed upward trajectory after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-22085
Vulnerability Data
An SQL injection vulnerability in the legacy (transparent) SMTP proxy of Sophos Firewall versions older than 21.0 MR2 (21.0.2) can lead to remote code execution, if a quarantining policy is active for Email and SFOS was upgraded from a version…
more
older than 21.0 GA.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.
Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.
System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.
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 target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.
Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.
Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.
Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.