GHSA-wh92-6q6g-px7j CVE-2025-54236
Magento Community Edition Improper Input Validation vulnerability
Critical
Known exploited
Packagist
- Severity
- 9.1 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 95.35%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.87% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Oct 24, 2025
- Weakness
- CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Adobe Commerce and Magento Improper Input Validation Vulnerability (Adobe Commerce and Magento). 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 Nov 14, 2025.
Description
Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.9-alpha2, 2.4.8-p2, 2.4.7-p7, 2.4.6-p12, 2.4.5-p14, 2.4.4-p15 and earlier are affected by an Improper Input Validation vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. A successful attacker can abuse this to achieve session takeover, increasing the confidentiality and integrity impact to high. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| magento/community-edition | <= 2.4.5-p14 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | 1 listed versions | No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.6-p1, <= 2.4.6-p12 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | 1 listed versions | No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.9-alpha1, <= 2.4.9-alpha2 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | 1 listed versions | No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | 1 listed versions | No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.7-beta1, <= 2.4.7-p7 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.8-beta1, <= 2.4.8-p2 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | 1 listed versions | No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | <= 2.4.5-p14 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.6-p1, <= 2.4.6-p12 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.9-alpha1, <= 2.4.9-alpha2 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.7-beta1, <= 2.4.7-p7 |
No fix yet |
| magento/community-edition | >= 2.4.8-beta1, <= 2.4.8-p2 |
No fix yet |
| magento/project-community-edition | <= 2.0.2 |
No fix yet |
| magento/project-community-edition | <= 2.0.2 |
No fix yet |
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 9.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
References
Advisories
Packages
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-m8cj-3v68-3cxj Magento Open Source affected by an Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference ('XXE') vulnerability | Critical Known exploited | Also affects magento/community-edition |
| GHSA-f8fv-f786-9933 Magento improper input validation vulnerability | Critical Known exploited | Also affects magento/community-edition |
| GHSA-qvwr-p3hj-j6jf Magento vulnerable to privilege escalation due to incorrect authorization | Medium | Also affects magento/community-edition |
| GHSA-pcrx-r49h-x2w5 Magento vulnerable to stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) | Medium | Also affects magento/community-edition |
| GHSA-r355-75hw-r8jf Magento allows incorrect authorization | Medium | Also affects magento/community-edition |
| GHSA-2768-5wmv-cfff Magento vulnerable to stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) | High | Also affects magento/community-edition |
| GHSA-69x9-xp2j-w8g8 Magento provides incorrect authorization through a security feature bypass | High | Also affects magento/community-edition |
| GHSA-h4f4-gv6h-x824 Magento vulnerable to path traversal | Medium | Also affects magento/community-edition |
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