Home/CVE/An unauthenticated remote command execution vulnerability exists in Pandora FMS versions up to and including 5.0RC1 via
CVE
CVE-2014-125124
An unauthenticated remote command execution vulnerability exists in Pandora FMS versions up to and including 5.0RC1 via
An unauthenticated remote command execution vulnerability exists in Pandora FMS versions up to and including 5.0RC1 via the Anyterm web interface, which listens on TCP port 8023. The anyterm-module endpoint accepts unsanitized user input via the p parameter and directly injects it into a shell command, allowing arbitrary command execution as the pandora user. In certain versions (notably 4.1 and 5.0RC1), the pandora user can elevate privileges to root without a password using a chain involving the artica user account.
This account is typically installed without a password and is configured to run sudo without authentication. Therefore, full system compromise is possible without any credentials.
EPSS 0.53143
Act now
- EPSS ≥ 0.50 - high probability of exploitation in the next 30 days
- EPSS percentile: top 2% of all CVEs by exploitation likelihood
- Reliable Metasploit module available (rank: Excellent) - weaponised exploit code
- Public exploit or PoC is available
- SSVC automatable: yes - attacks can be scripted at scale
- ⚠ NVD has not scored this CVE yet - manual triage required (common for recent CVEs)
Sigma rules0
YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
▸
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2014-125124, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked.
EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal.
CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score.
Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits.
PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).
◆
ATT&CK techniques
2Techniques this CVE enables - linked via CWECAPECATT&CK. High◆ = named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei templates.
▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques▤
CAPEC attack patterns
10Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.
CAPEC-CAPEC-108 · Command Line Execution through SQL Injection CAPEC-CAPEC-12 · Choosing Message Identifier CAPEC-CAPEC-15 · Command Delimiters CAPEC-CAPEC-166 · Force the System to Reset Values CAPEC-CAPEC-216 · Communication Channel Manipulation CAPEC-CAPEC-36 · Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality CAPEC-CAPEC-43 · Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers CAPEC-CAPEC-6 · Argument Injection CAPEC-CAPEC-62 · Cross Site Request Forgery CAPEC-CAPEC-88 · OS Command Injection
⬡
Weakness Classification
⚠
Public Exploits & PoCs
4These PoC and exploit links come from public sources and are not verified to be safe or functional. Review the code before running anything, and treat unverified entries as untrusted.
⚙
Metasploit Modules
1Weaponised exploit modules in the Metasploit Framework. Rank is Metasploit’s reliability rating - Excellent/Great/Good means dependable, real-world exploit code (a strong “act now” signal), not a fragile PoC.
▣
Scoring & Timeline
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
poc
Automatable
yes
Technical impact
total
SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.
🔗
References & Sources
1Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.