Listen to this Post
In recent days, confusion has surrounded a critical security flaw in Commvault’s Command Center, sparking debate between cybersecurity researchers and the vendor. The vulnerability, identified as CVE-2025-34028 with a maximum CVSS score of 10.0, initially raised concerns that even updated versions of Commvault’s software might still be exploitable. However, the company has now clarified that these claims stem from the researcher’s failure to test the properly patched version of the software.
A Critical Flaw Meets Misinformation
CVE-2025-34028 is a severe server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Commvault Command Center’s web interface, impacting versions 11.38.0 to 11.38.19. It allows pre-authentication attacks that could grant unauthorized access to sensitive data environments—an especially troubling scenario for organizations that depend on Commvault for backup and recovery.
On April 17, Commvault issued patches (versions 11.38.20 and 11.38.25), addressing the vulnerability after being notified by cybersecurity researchers from watchTowr. The update process, however, wasn’t as seamless for everyone.
Cybersecurity researcher Will Dormann tested the exploit and claimed that the flaw remained exploitable even in the updated versions. These claims spread rapidly across social media and tech reporting outlets, casting doubt on Commvault’s patch effectiveness.
But Commvault quickly disputed these assertions. Spokesperson Ross Camp stated that Dormann had not tested the fully patched version because he lacked access due to not being registered with Commvault’s update infrastructure. Once the researcher went through the proper update process, he confirmed the patch did work and revised his public statements.
Cloud Deployment and Update Access Challenges
Dormann highlighted a critical issue: users deploying Commvault 11.38 VMs via cloud platforms like Azure or AWS were unable to access the patch without manual registration. These systems, although vulnerable, falsely reported themselves as fully updated.
Commvault has since overhauled its backend to ensure patch availability through a manual download for all users—registered or not. As of May 7, these cloud-hosted instances are now eligible for updates like all other licensed or trial users.
To further clarify, simply running version 11.38.20 or 11.38.25 is not enough. The patch’s effectiveness also depends on installing specific additional updates:
11.38.20 requires SP38-CU20-433 and SP38-CU20-436
11.38.25 requires SP38-CU25-434 and SP38-CU25-438
Commvault updated its public security advisory to include detailed verification steps for all customer tiers, including those on trial licenses.
What Undercode Say:
From a cybersecurity analysis standpoint, this incident reflects a recurring issue in modern patch management: update visibility and distribution mechanics matter just as much as the patch itself.
1. Vendor Transparency vs. Ecosystem Complexity:
While Commvault acted responsibly in issuing a timely patch, its layered distribution model—especially the limitations on cloud-deployed, trial-based VMs—created an information vacuum. Security should never depend on the user’s method of deployment.
2. Patch Verification Gaps:
Dormann’s initial claim spread due to an understandable but preventable oversight: patch version number mismatches. Commvault’s additional patch layers (CU codes) add complexity that most administrators won’t intuitively cross-reference unless explicitly guided. This is an industry-wide pain point—not just Commvault’s.
3. The Cloud Challenge:
SaaS and cloud-hosted deployments frequently obscure underlying patch levels. Enterprises often assume “latest version” equals “fully secure,” but this case shows that logic can backfire when backend logic isn’t aligned across deployment types.
4. Communication Breakdown:
Dormann’s initial post illustrates how even seasoned researchers can fall into the trap of incomplete testing due to access barriers. However, it also highlights a gap in Commvault’s outreach and documentation strategy. If updates require registration, that process must be overtly communicated within deployment documentation and UI alerts.
5. Customer Impact Risk:
Although Commvault claims no active exploitation in the wild, the potential attack surface was exposed for weeks in unregistered environments. Enterprises relying on default update mechanisms were effectively blind to this vulnerability.
6. Patch Logistics in Real-Time Security:
Enterprises must adapt their patching processes to include manual verification and update logs, especially for cloud-deployed systems. Relying solely on the platform’s automatic update system no longer guarantees full coverage.
7. Reputation Damage from Misinformation:
Dormann’s quick correction helped mitigate long-term damage to Commvault’s credibility, but the initial wave of concern already raised questions among users. Future incidents may not be so swiftly addressed or clarified.
8. Vendor Lesson:
Security advisories must evolve to not only report a fix but also explain how to confirm a secure state. As demonstrated here, version numbers are not enough; hash validation, CU codes, or automated compliance checks should accompany any critical fix.
9. User Responsibility Grows:
Enterprises, especially those deploying via cloud marketplaces, should consider post-installation hardening steps and patch automation layers beyond what vendors provide by default.
10. Zero-Day Culture:
This story also underscores how zero-day attention can spiral quickly—even inaccurately. The cybersecurity world must balance urgency with verification, especially in public disclosures.
Fact Checker Results
Claim that patch was ineffective: False — the researcher did not initially test the correct version.
Vendor response time: Accurate — patch was available before disclosure, but distribution lag affected some users.
Risk of exposure in cloud VMs: Valid — users were unaware they were unpatched due to platform-specific limitations.
Prediction
We anticipate Commvault and similar vendors will increasingly shift toward unified patch management systems that work regardless of deployment method—on-premises, Azure, AWS, or others. Expect to see a rise in self-verifying patches, enhanced update visibility dashboards, and possibly AI-based compliance alerts integrated into enterprise tools. This case might serve as a catalyst for other vendors to review and revamp their patch delivery methods, especially for free or trial-based deployments which often fall through the cracks.
References:
Reported By: www.darkreading.com
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.stackexchange.com
Wikipedia
Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
