VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jun 2018Updated 9 Jun 2025

CVE-2018-1000500: Busybox contains a Missing SSL certificate validation

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 2.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 84% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Jun 2018
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

European organizations should take the following specific steps to mitigate this vulnerability: 1) Inventory all devices and systems using BusyBox, particularly those employing the wget applet for HTTPS downloads. 2) Upgrade BusyBox to a version where SSL certificate validation is properly implemented or apply vendor-provided patches that address this issue. 3) Where upgrades are not immediately possible, implement network-level protections such as strict TLS interception policies, DNS filtering, and network segmentation to limit exposure to malicious domains. 4) Employ application whitelisting or integrity verification mechanisms to ensure that downloaded files are validated before execution. 5) Monitor network traffic for unusual HTTPS download requests from BusyBox wget instances, and alert on connections to suspicious or untrusted domains. 6) Educate system administrators and IoT device managers about the risks of downloading files over HTTPS without certificate validation and encourage the use of alternative secure methods for file transfer. 7) Consider deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions capable of detecting anomalous code execution on embedded devices where feasible.

Description

Busybox contains a Missing SSL certificate validation vulnerability in The "busybox wget" applet that can result in arbitrary code execution. This attack appear to be exploitable via Simply download any file over HTTPS using "busybox wget https://compromised-domain.com/important-file".

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability can have serious implications, especially for those relying on embedded devices, IoT infrastructure, or network equipment that use BusyBox. Compromised devices could be used as entry points for further network intrusion, data exfiltration, or lateral movement within corporate networks. The ability to execute arbitrary code remotely without authentication or user interaction increases the risk of automated exploitation campaigns, potentially leading to espionage, sabotage, or disruption of critical services. Sectors such as manufacturing, telecommunications, transportation, and critical infrastructure in Europe that deploy embedded Linux systems with BusyBox are particularly at risk. Additionally, the vulnerability undermines the trust in HTTPS connections for these devices, which may lead to broader security concerns if attackers can intercept and manipulate supposedly secure communications. The medium severity rating indicates that while the vulnerability is not the most critical, it still requires timely attention to prevent exploitation that could compromise confidentiality and integrity of data and systems.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 20:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats