A remote code execution vulnerability exists in CryptoLog (PHP version, discontinued since…
CVE-2025-34102 is a critical-severity improper input validation vulnerability in CryptoLog from Crypttech, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 9.3 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists version ASP.NET rewrite (2009) as the first without the flaw, so updating CryptoLog to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 9.49% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is in the top 4.48% of all scored CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Update CryptoLog to ASP.NET rewrite (2009) or a later version.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crypttech | CryptoLog | unspecified PHP versions up to, but not including, ASP.NET rewrite (2009) | ASP.NET rewrite (2009) |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (vulncheck.com).
Official description
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in CryptoLog (PHP version, discontinued since 2009) due to a chained exploitation of SQL injection and command injection vulnerabilities. An unauthenticated attacker can gain shell access as the web server user by first exploiting a SQL injection flaw in login.php to bypass authentication, followed by command injection in logshares_ajax.php to execute arbitrary operating system commands. The login bypass is achieved by submitting crafted SQL via the user POST parameter. Once authenticated, the attacker can abuse the lsid POST parameter in the logshares_ajax.php endpoint to inject and execute a command using $(...) syntax, resulting in code execution under the web context. This exploitation path does not exist in the ASP.NET version of CryptoLog released since 2009.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: 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 developers prevent this class of flaw
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: yes, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 9.3 Critical severity
- 9.3 Critical severity
- 9.3 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.