Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

CVE-2025-47812

In Wing FTP Server before 7.4.4.

Critical Known exploited
Severity
10.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
93.88%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.84% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
Yes
In CISA's catalog since Jul 14, 2025
Weakness
CWE-158 Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Wing FTP Server Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character Vulnerability (Wing FTP Server Wing FTP Server). 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 Aug 4, 2025.

Description

In Wing FTP Server before 7.4.4. the user and admin web interfaces mishandle '\0' bytes, ultimately allowing injection of arbitrary Lua code into user session files. This can be used to execute arbitrary system commands with the privileges of the FTP service (root or SYSTEM by default). This is thus a remote code execution vulnerability that guarantees a total server compromise. This is also exploitable via anonymous FTP accounts.

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 10.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-158: Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downstream component.

How to prevent it
  • Developers should anticipate that null characters or null bytes will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

References

Advisories

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
  3. Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
  4. Last updated by the source
  5. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-5c9j-mhmv-5xgx
Electron: shell.openPath path validation bypass via embedded null byte
Medium Same weakness, CWE-158
Is this in your code?

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