GHSA-fcr4-h6c4-rvvp CVE-2025-22237 PYSEC-2026-1898

Salt's on demand pillar functionality vulnerable to arbitrary command injections

Medium PyPI

Severity: 6.7 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.18%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Fix: 3006.12; Upgrade salt to this version or later

Description

An attacker with access to a minion key can exploit the 'on demand' pillar functionality with a specially crafted git url which could cause and arbitrary command to be run on the master with the same privileges as the master process.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
salt	`>= 3006.0rc1, < 3006.12`	`3006.12`
salt	`>= 3007.0rc1, < 3007.4`	`3007.4`
salt	`>= 3006.0rc1, < 3006.12` `>= 3007.0rc1, < 3007.4`	`3006.12` `3007.4`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

salt PyPI → `3006.12`

pip

pip install --upgrade "salt>=3006.12"

poetry

poetry add "salt>=3006.12"

uv

uv add "salt>=3006.12"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.7

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

Attack vector: Local
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: High
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.

References

Advisories

Packages

Timeline

Jun 13, 2025 Published
Jul 7, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
CVE-2020-16846 SaltStack Salt Command Injection in netapi ssh client	Critical Known exploited	Also affects salt
CVE-2020-11652 SaltStack Salt is vulnerable Arbitrary Directory Access	High Known exploited	Also affects salt
CVE-2020-11651 SaltStack Salt Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution	Critical Known exploited	Also affects salt
GHSA-vcf3-26xf-fw4m Salt Authentication Protocol Version Downgrade Allows Minion Impersonation	Medium	Also affects salt
GHSA-77w2-v593-vxvv Salt junos Module Vulnerable to Code Injection via Specially Crafted YAML Payload	High	Also affects salt
GHSA-8pcp-r83j-fc92 Salt vulnerable to directory traversal attack in file receiving method	High	Also affects salt
GHSA-989c-m532-p2hv Salt's worker process vulnerable to denial of service through file read operation	Medium	Also affects salt
GHSA-7f3f-x5f5-79gw Salt's file contents overwrite the VirtKey class	Medium	Also affects salt

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