Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 3.10% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-27407High confidence
Remote code execution when loading a crafted GraphQL schema
rmosolgo · graphql-ruby
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-Q92J-GRW3-H492 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
9.1CriticalCVSS 3.1
Within 72 hours
Fix not verifiedCritical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs rmosolgo graphql-ruby and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | ruby-graphql | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.2.17-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | ruby-graphql | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | ruby-graphql | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.2.17-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | ruby-graphql | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.2.17-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | ruby-graphql | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Open-source package ranges16 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 2.4.0; fixed 2.4.13 | 2.4.13 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 2.3.0; fixed 2.3.21 | 2.3.21 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 2.2.0; fixed 2.2.17 | 2.2.17 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 2.1.0; fixed 2.1.15 | 2.1.15 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 2.0.0; fixed 2.0.32 | 2.0.32 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.13.0; fixed 1.13.24 | 1.13.24 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.12.0; fixed 1.12.25 | 1.12.25 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| RubyGemsgraphql | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.11.5; fixed 1.11.11 | 1.11.11 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 2.4.0, < 2.4.13 | 2.4.13 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 2.3.0, < 2.3.21 | 2.3.21 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 2.0.0, < 2.0.32 | 2.0.32 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 1.13.0, < 1.13.24 | 1.13.24 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 1.12.0, < 1.12.25 | 1.12.25 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 2.1.0, < 2.1.15 | 2.1.15 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 1.11.5, < 1.11.11 | 1.11.11 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
| rubygemsgraphql | >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.17 | 2.2.17 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 3 Nov 2025 |
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
graphql-ruby is a Ruby implementation of GraphQL. Starting in version 1.11.5 and prior to versions 1.11.8, 1.12.25, 1.13.24, 2.0.32, 2.1.14, 2.2.17, and 2.3.21, loading a malicious schema definition in `GraphQL::Schema.from_introspection` (or `GraphQL::Schema::Loader.load`) can result in remote code execution. Any system which loads a schema by JSON from an untrusted source is vulnerable, including those that use GraphQL::Client to load external schemas via GraphQL introspection. Versions 1.11.8, 1.12.25, 1.13.24, 2.0.32, 2.1.14, 2.2.17, and 2.3.21 contain a patch for the issue.
What
graphql-ruby is a Ruby implementation of GraphQL. Starting in version 1.11.5 and prior to versions 1.11.8, 1.12.25, 1.13.24, 2.0.32, 2.1.14, 2.2.17, and 2.3.21, loading a malicious schema definition in `GraphQL::Schema.from_introspection` (or `GraphQL::Schema::Loader.load`) can result in remote code execution. Any system which loads a schema by JSON from an untrusted source is vulnerable, including those that use GraphQL::Client to load external schemas via GraphQL introspection. Versions 1.11.8, 1.12.25, 1.13.24, 2.0.32, 2.1.14, 2.2.17, and 2.3.21 contain a patch for the issue.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
graphql-ruby is a Ruby implementation of GraphQL. Starting in version 1.11.5 and prior to versions 1.11.8, 1.12.25, 1.13.24, 2.0.32, 2.1.14, 2.2.17, and 2.3.21, loading a malicious schema definition in `GraphQL::Schema.from_introspection` (or `GraphQL::Schema::Loader.load`) can result in remote code execution. Any system which loads a schema by JSON from an untrusted source is vulnerable, including those that use GraphQL::Client to load external schemas via GraphQL introspection. Versions 1.11.8, 1.12.25, 1.13.24, 2.0.32, 2.1.14, 2.2.17, and 2.3.21 contain a patch for the issue.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-94 ↗
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'). 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.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- graphql-ruby: >= 1.11.5, < 1.11.8, >= 1.12.0, < 1.12.25, >= 1.13.0, < 1.13.24, >= 2.0.0, < 2.0.32, >= 2.1.0, < 2.1.14, >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.17, >= 2.3.0, < 2.3.21
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 12 Mar 2025 · Last source change 3 Nov 2025, 19:45 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-7224
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.