CVE-2025-31499 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-31499 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-31499: Jellyfin is an open source self hosted media server. Versions before 10.10.7 are vulnerable to argument injection in FFmpeg. This can be leveraged to possibly achieve remote code execution by anyone with credentials to a low-privileged user. This vulnerability was previously reported in CVE-2023-49096 and patched in version 10.8.13, but the patch can be bypassed. The original fix sanitizes some parameters to make injection impossible, but certain unsanitized parameters can still be used for argument injection. The same unauthenticated endpoints are vulnerable: /Videos/<itemId>/stream and /Videos/<itemId>/stream.<container>, likely alongside similar endpoints in AudioController. This argument injection can be exploited to achieve arbitrary file write, leading to possible remote code execution through the plugin system. While the unauthenticated endpoints are vulnerable, a valid itemId is required for exploitation and any authenticated attacker could easily retrieve a valid itemId to make the exploit work. This vulnerability is patched in version 10.10.7.

CVE-2025-31499 References

External References

• https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/commit/79f3ce53257c5291887cd52d8ac735b5252c9a97
• https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/security/advisories/GHSA-2c3c-r7gp-q32m

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• Parameter Injection CAPEC-137 An adversary manipulates the content of request parameters for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some parameter encodings use text characters as separators. For example, parameters in a HTTP GET message are encoded as name-value pairs separated by an ampersand (&). If an attacker can supply text strings that are used to fill in these parameters, then they can inject special characters used in the encoding scheme to add or modify parameters. For example, if user input is fed directly into an HTTP GET request and the user provides the value "myInput&new_param=myValue", then the input parameter is set to myInput, but a new parameter (new_param) is also added with a value of myValue. This can significantly change the meaning of the query that is processed by the server. Any encoding scheme where parameters are identified and separated by text characters is potentially vulnerable to this attack - the HTTP GET encoding used above is just one example.
• Flash Parameter Injection CAPEC-174 An adversary takes advantage of improper data validation to inject malicious global parameters into a Flash file embedded within an HTML document. Flash files can leverage user-submitted data to configure the Flash document and access the embedding HTML document.
• Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads CAPEC-41 This type of attack involves an attacker leveraging meta-characters in email headers to inject improper behavior into email programs. Email software has become increasingly sophisticated and feature-rich. In addition, email applications are ubiquitous and connected directly to the Web making them ideal targets to launch and propagate attacks. As the user demand for new functionality in email applications grows, they become more like browsers with complex rendering and plug in routines. As more email functionality is included and abstracted from the user, this creates opportunities for attackers. Virtually all email applications do not list email header information by default, however the email header contains valuable attacker vectors for the attacker to exploit particularly if the behavior of the email client application is known. Meta-characters are hidden from the user, but can contain scripts, enumerations, probes, and other attacks against the user's system.
• HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) CAPEC-460 An adversary adds duplicate HTTP GET/POST parameters by injecting query string delimiters. Via HPP it may be possible to override existing hardcoded HTTP parameters, modify the application behaviors, access and, potentially exploit, uncontrollable variables, and bypass input validation checkpoints and WAF rules.
• OS Command Injection CAPEC-88 In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2025-3800 – A vulnerability has been found in WCMS 11 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file app/co...
• CVE-2025-3799 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in WCMS 11. Affected is an unknown function of the file app/controllers/AnonymousContr...
• CVE-2025-3798 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in WCMS 11. This issue affects the function sub of the file app/admin/AdvadminCon...
• CVE-2025-3661 – The SB Chart block plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘className’ parameter in all versions up to, and inclu...
• CVE-2025-3404 – The Download Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the savePackage func...