Erpnext: Improper Control of Generation of Code
CVE-2025-66438 is a high-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in Erpnext from Frappe, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected Erpnext versions: 15.89.0 and earlier. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.5% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of Erpnext you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
Affected products and versions
Version data comes from NVD's product matching. 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.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.8 | High | NVD |
| CVSS 3.1 | 9.8 | Critical | CISA (ADP) |
Official description
A Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability exists in the Frappe ERPNext through 15.89.0 Print Format rendering mechanism. Specifically, the API frappe.www.printview.get_html_and_style() triggers the rendering of the html field inside a Print Format document using frappe.render_template(template, doc) via the get_rendered_template() call chain. Although ERPNext wraps Jinja2 in a SandboxedEnvironment, it exposes sensitive functions such as frappe.db.sql through get_safe_globals(). An authenticated attacker with permission to create or modify a Print Format can inject arbitrary Jinja expressions into the html field. Once the malicious Print Format is saved, the attacker can call get_html_and_style() with a target document (e.g., Supplier or Sales Invoice) to trigger the render process. This leads to information disclosure from the database, such as database version, schema details, or sensitive values, depending on the injected payload. Exploitation flow: Create a Print Format with SSTI payload in the html field; call the get_html_and_style() API; triggers frappe.render_template(template, doc) inside get_rendered_template(); leaks database information via frappe.db.sql or other exposed globals.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Control of Generation of Code
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Run your code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
More Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities (CWE-94)
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
Technical write-ups (may include proof of concept)
- iamanc.github.io/post/erpnext-ssti-bug-5Exploit, Third Party Advisory
- notion.so/SSTI-bug-5-239e6086eadc80a48f17c1257a604d2c?source=copy_linkExploit, Third Party Advisory
Other vulnerabilities in Erpnext
- 7.7 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities
- 7.2 High severity
- 7.2 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.2 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.