CVE-2025-10035
A deserialization vulnerability in the License Servlet of Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT allows an actor with a validly forged license response signature to…
Critical
Known exploited
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 99.82%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Sep 29, 2025
- Weakness
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Fortra GoAnywhere MFT Deserialization of Untrusted Data Vulnerability (Fortra GoAnywhere MFT). Required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Oct 20, 2025. Known to be used in ransomware campaigns.
Description
A deserialization vulnerability in the License Servlet of Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT allows an actor with a validly forged license response signature to deserialize an arbitrary actor-controlled object, possibly leading to command injection.
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
- Implementation: When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
- Implementation: Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make fields transient to protect them from deserialization. An attempt to serialize and then deserialize a class containing transient fields will result in NULLs where the transient data should be. This is an excellent way to prevent time, environment-based, or sensitive variables from being carried over and used improperly.
- Implementation: Avoid having unnecessary types or gadgets (a sequence of instances and method invocations that can self-execute during the deserialization process, often found in libraries) available that can be leveraged for malicious ends. This limits the potential for unintended or unauthorized types and gadgets to be leveraged by the attacker. Add only acceptable classes to an allowlist. Note: new gadgets are constantly being discovered, so this alone is not a sufficient mitigation.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Employ cryptography of the data or code for protection. However, it's important to note that it would still be client-side security. This is risky because if the client is compromised then the security implemented on the client (the cryptography) can be bypassed.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
- Implementation: When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
- Implementation: Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make fields transient to protect them from deserialization. An attempt to serialize and then deserialize a class containing transient fields will result in NULLs where the transient data should be. This is an excellent way to prevent time, environment-based, or sensitive variables from being carried over and used improperly.
- Implementation: Avoid having unnecessary types or gadgets (a sequence of instances and method invocations that can self-execute during the deserialization process, often found in libraries) available that can be leveraged for malicious ends. This limits the potential for unintended or unauthorized types and gadgets to be leveraged by the attacker. Add only acceptable classes to an allowlist. Note: new gadgets are constantly being discovered, so this alone is not a sufficient mitigation.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Employ cryptography of the data or code for protection. However, it's important to note that it would still be client-side security. This is risky because if the client is compromised then the security implemented on the client (the cryptography) can be bypassed.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-587h-7wmj-h5pm launch-editor: `fs.existsSync()` existence check can be bypassed on Windows | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| CVE-2026-96951 Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('command injection') in Windows Shell allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security… | High Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| CVE-2026-105134 A flaw has been found in Ahsay AhsayCBS up to 9.15.2.69/10.3.4.44. | Critical Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-jf24-8g2h-2wg7 LibreNMS Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via AboutController | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-c9fv-cgmm-2wg7 LibreNMS Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution by Signal Alert Transportation module | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-6qc3-v8fv-fv9j Apache Ranger has a Command Injection vulnerability | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-956x-8gvw-wg5v GitPython: command injection via unguarded Git options in `Repo.archive()`, `git.ls_remote()`, and arbitrary file overwrite via `Repo.iter_commits()` / `Repo.blame()` | High | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
| GHSA-qf6p-p7ww-cwr9 Gogs vulnerable to RCE via git rebase --exec argument injection in pull request merge | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-77 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor