Skip to content

GO-2025-3550 BIT-mattermost-2025-25274 CVE-2025-25274 GHSA-4v65-xqcj-wpgg

Mattermost Fails to Restrict Command Execution in Archived Channels in github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server

High Go
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.38%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.93% 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')
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Mattermost Fails to Restrict Command Execution in Archived Channels in github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
>= 9.11.0+incompatible, < 9.11.9+incompatible
>= 10.3.0+incompatible, < 10.3.4+incompatible
>= 10.4.0+incompatible, < 10.4.3+incompatible
>= 10.5.0+incompatible, < 10.5.1+incompatible
9.11.9+incompatible
10.3.4+incompatible
10.4.3+incompatible
10.5.1+incompatible
github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/v5
all versions
No fix yet
github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/v6
all versions
No fix yet
github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8
>= 10.4.0, < 10.4.3
10.4.3
github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8
>= 10.3.0, < 10.3.4
10.3.4
github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8
>= 9.11.0, < 9.11.9
9.11.9
github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8
>= 10.5.0, < 10.5.1
10.5.1
github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8
all versions
No fix yet

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.

github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server Go → 10.5.1+incompatible

go
go get github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server@v10.5.1+incompatible && go mod tidy

github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8 Go → 10.4.3

go
go get github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8@v10.4.3 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
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-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xmfh-3ccg-c9fx
Mattermost has an Incorrect Authorization issue
Low Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-h998-hxxj-8q83
Mattermost doesn't invalidate cached authentication state for active WebSocket connections during global session revocation
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-g5vr-6pgg-74qv
Mattermost doesn't enforce bot-specific permission checks on the user active status endpoint
Low Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-jqgv-39mg-7c2r
Mattermost doesn't authenticate Atlassian Connect installed callbacks, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject a rogue sharedSecret
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-mxq2-5jpg-7474
Mattermost doesn't validate channel ownership of an existing subscription before applying edits
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-2g8v-grq3-hq2g
Mattermost doesn't enforce administrator authorization on the {{setDefaultInstance}} call within the {{/gitlab connect}} command handler
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-6hxm-w4hv-vgvw
Mattermost doesn't require role-management authorization when setting the scheme_admin flag on group syncable link and patch endpoints
High Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-9p44-r552-4wp9
Mattermost doesn't sanitize the Remote Cluster API response on PATCH operations
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
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