Skip to content

Conversation

@kodidalabhavitha
Copy link

@kodidalabhavitha kodidalabhavitha commented Dec 2, 2025

Case Study: CWE-262 – CVE-2025-47812 – Wing FTP Server Remote Code Execution

CVE-2025-47812 affects Wing FTP Server versions prior to 7.4.4. The bug is due to incorrect processing of null bytes (\0) in session files, leading to Lua code injection for the purpose of remote code execution. In many cases where it is running as a service, privileges are root or SYSTEM; hence, exploitation leads to complete server compromise. Public proof-of-concept exploits exist, and active exploitation is reported.

Mitigation: Upgrade to Wing FTP Server 7.4.4 or later, disable anonymous FTP, and monitor logs.
Prevention: Enforce secure defaults, validate inputs, and reduce unnecessary scripting features.
References: NVD CVE-2025-47812, Qualys Advisory, Tenable Advisory, Huntress Labs, GitHub PoC.

Case Study: CWE-262 – Not Using Password Aging

This case study examines CWE-262, where systems fail to enforce password expiration or rotation. Without password aging, credentials remain valid indefinitely, increasing risk from brute-force, credential-stuffing, and password-spraying attacks.
The weakness persists in legacy and regulated environments with outdated policies. While NIST guidelines discourage frequent forced changes, indefinite validity still leaves accounts vulnerable.
A real-world product example shows how lack of aging exposes systems to compromise. The case study maps to CWE-262, explains trade-offs in password policy design, and highlights why this remains a security issue.

Mitigation: enforce rotation policies, adopt adaptive authentication, and monitor for stale credentials. Prevention: secure defaults, align with modern standards, and balance usability with risk reduction.

References: Issue mitre#22 
License: CC-BY-4.0
@continue
Copy link

continue bot commented Dec 2, 2025

Keep this PR in a mergeable state →

Learn more

All Green is an AI agent that automatically:

✅ Addresses code review comments

✅ Fixes failing CI checks

✅ Resolves merge conflicts

Case Study: CWE-262 – CVE-2025-47812 – Wing FTP Server Remote Code Execution

CVE-2025-47812 affects Wing FTP Server versions prior to 7.4.4. The bug is due to incorrect processing of null bytes (\0) in session files, leading to Lua code injection for the purpose of remote code execution. In many cases where it is running as a service, privileges are root or SYSTEM; hence, exploitation leads to complete server compromise. Public proof-of-concept exploits exist, and active exploitation is reported.

Mitigation: Upgrade to Wing FTP Server 7.4.4 or later, disable anonymous FTP, and monitor logs.
Prevention: Enforce secure defaults, validate inputs, and reduce unnecessary scripting features.
References: NVD CVE-2025-47812, Qualys Advisory, Tenable Advisory, Huntress Labs, GitHub PoC.
@abuttner
Copy link
Collaborator

Please try to add more detail to this case study. Ideally you can walk the reader through the vulnerable code, point out the specific line(s) where the mistake/weakness is, and then show how the developer fixed the issue by presenting the fixed code. Please see the existing case studies for examples of how this has been accomplished.

@stevechristeycoley
Copy link
Collaborator

Automated Analysis Results of This Use Case

Thank you for providing your use case! Apologies for the form letter, but it's a pleasure to see y'all :)

With technical knowledge work such as this project, it is important to structure information as well as possible, so that it can be processed automatically.

We also want to validate our inputs ;-)

So, this report contains the results of an automated analysis of the provided use case, looking for consistency with the documented format as covered in Section 3 "Case Study Structure" of the Style Guide.

Disclaimers:

  • David Wheeler may provide guidance on how to handle these reports. We're grateful that you've put in this work already, and we don't want to burden you unnecessarily 'cuz you're probably busy :)
  • Our style guide was not always 100% clear (as often happens early in technical knowledge work), so this analysis attempts to automatically resolve potential inconsistencies.
  • This report is provided as a convenience. There may be some errors or omissions in this report.
  • We will conduct deeper analysis at a later time.

Items are prioritized from Informative, Low, Medium, to High in terms of current importance to the project.

Analyzing Presence of Markdown

Markdown detected in the document.

Parser Issues

The following issues were encountered by the parser used to analyze this file. This might explain potential errors and false positives in the subsequent analysis.

  • [Info] Inferring that line 1 contains the title

Section Analysis

  • [Info] 0 major section-name issues detected.
  • [Med] Section 'Title' is expected to have 1 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Introduction' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Software' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Weakness' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Vulnerability' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Exploit' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Fix' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Prevention' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Conclusion' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'References' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
  • [Med] Section 'Contributions' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2

Analyzing Title Section

Note: the analysis may be incorrect depending on how
you provided the title. This an issue with the analyzer.

Inferred/Extracted Title begins with text: '1. Title **Critical Remote Code Execution via Null...'

  • [Low] Title does not contain only capital letters
  • [Med] Title contains more than 8 words (longer than the recommended 4 to 6)

Analyzing Introduction Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Software Section

  • [High] Missing **Name:** in Software section
  • [High] Missing **Language:** in Software section
  • [High] Missing **URL:** in Software section

Analyzing Weakness Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Vulnerability Section

  • [High] Vulnerability section does not appear to contain a CVE-YYYY-NNNN
  • [Med] Vulnerability section does not appear to contain a 'vulnerable file:' label
  • [Med] No apparent source code ``` tags in Vulnerability section

Analyzing Fix Section

  • [Med] Fix section does not appear to contain a 'fixed file:' label
  • [Med] No apparent source code ``` tags in Fix section

Analyzing References Section

No issues found.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants