CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-66263

Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character

Published: Nov 26, 2025 | Modified: Nov 26, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Unauthenticated Arbitrary File Read via Null Byte Injection in DB Electronica Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Mozart FM Transmitter versions 30, 50, 100, 300, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 3500, 6000, 7000 allows an attacker to perform Null byte injection in download_setting.php allows reading arbitrary files. The /var/tdf/download_setting.php endpoint constructs file paths by concatenating user-controlled $_GET[filename] with a forced .tgz extension. Running on PHP 5.3.2 (pre-5.3.4), the application is vulnerable to null byte injection (%00), allowing attackers to bypass the extension restriction and traverse paths. By requesting filename=../../../../etc/passwd%00, the underlying C functions treat the null byte as a string terminator, ignoring the appended .tgz and enabling unauthenticated arbitrary file disclosure of any file readable by the web server user.

Weakness

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downstream component.

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References