CVE-2025-10326VulnerabilityPublished 12 Sep 2025Updated 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10326: MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID · OS Command Injection

Affects MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFIDSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 5.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 93% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Sep 2025
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 2026-10-26.

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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID	Affected =2.0 =2.1 =2.2 =2.3 =2.4 =2.5 =2.6 =2.7 =2.8.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement specific mitigations to reduce risk. First, isolate RPi-Jukebox-RFID devices on segmented networks with strict firewall rules to limit remote access to the device’s API endpoints, especially /htdocs/api/playlist/single.php. Employ network-level access controls such as VPNs or IP whitelisting to restrict who can reach these devices. Disable or restrict the vulnerable API functionality if possible, or replace the device with alternative solutions until a patch is available. Monitor network traffic for unusual requests targeting the playlist parameter or unexpected command execution behaviors. Implement host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) on Raspberry Pi devices to detect anomalous system calls or command executions. Regularly audit device configurations and logs for signs of compromise. Finally, maintain awareness of vendor communications for any future patches and apply them promptly. Organizations should also consider educating users and administrators about the risks of exposing such devices to the internet without adequate protections.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID up to 2.8.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /htdocs/api/playlist/single.php. Performing manipulation of the argument playlist results in os command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact depends largely on the deployment context of RPi-Jukebox-RFID devices. While primarily used in hobbyist and small-scale settings, some educational institutions, museums, or small businesses in Europe may use these devices for interactive exhibits or background music systems. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized control over these devices, enabling attackers to disrupt services, exfiltrate data, or use compromised devices as footholds for further network intrusion. Although the vulnerability does not directly target critical infrastructure, the ease of remote exploitation without authentication raises concerns for any connected network environment. Additionally, the lack of vendor response and patch availability increases the window of exposure. European organizations with less mature cybersecurity practices or those using default configurations may be particularly vulnerable. The medium severity rating suggests moderate risk, but the public availability of exploit code could lead to increased attack attempts, especially in environments where these devices are internet-facing or poorly segmented.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Sep 2025, 00:41 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats