CVE-2025-10327VulnerabilityPublished 12 Sep 2025Updated 20 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-10327: MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID · OS Command Injection

Affects MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFIDSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · public exploit available (Exploit-DB) · 10% EPSS · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 10.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 95% 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

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
1 Exploit-DB entry, 127 days after disclosure
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

CVE ID reserved
by VulDB
12 Sep 202508:34 UTC, 12 hours before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
12 Sep 202521:02 UTC, t = 0
In Threat Radar
record ingested
12 Sep 202523:16 UTC, 2 hours after disclosure
First Exploit-DB entry (opens in a new tab)
RPi-Jukebox-RFID 2.8.0 - Remote Command Execution
17 Jan 2026, 127 days after disclosure

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 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

1. Restrict network access to RPi-Jukebox-RFID devices by implementing firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure of the /htdocs/api/playlist/shuffle.php endpoint to trusted hosts only. 2. Monitor network traffic and device logs for unusual or suspicious requests targeting the playlist API, indicating potential exploitation attempts. 3. Disable or remove the vulnerable shuffle.php API if not required for operational purposes to reduce the attack surface. 4. Employ host-based intrusion detection systems on Raspberry Pi devices to detect anomalous command execution or process behavior. 5. Maintain strict access controls on devices, ensuring only authorized personnel can modify or interact with the software. 6. Regularly back up device configurations and data to enable recovery in case of compromise. 7. Engage with the vendor or community to track any forthcoming patches or updates and apply them promptly once available. 8. Consider deploying application-layer firewalls or reverse proxies that can sanitize or block malicious input targeting the vulnerable parameter. 9. Educate users and administrators about the risks of exposing IoT or embedded devices to untrusted networks.

Description

A weakness has been identified in MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID up to 2.8.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /htdocs/api/playlist/shuffle.php. Executing manipulation of the argument playlist can lead to os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends on the deployment scale of RPi-Jukebox-RFID devices. While primarily used in hobbyist, educational, or small-scale commercial settings, compromised devices could serve as entry points into broader networks, especially if connected to internal systems. Attackers could execute arbitrary commands, leading to unauthorized data access, device control, or pivoting to other network assets. In environments where these devices manage or integrate with critical media or automation systems, availability and integrity could be affected, disrupting operations. The lack of vendor response and patch increases the risk exposure. Organizations in sectors with extensive use of Raspberry Pi devices, such as education, research, and small businesses, may face higher risks. Additionally, if devices are accessible from the internet or poorly segmented networks, the threat escalates. However, the medium CVSS score reflects that exploitation requires some privileges (PR:L), limiting immediate widespread impact.

Summary

CVE-2025-10327 is an OS command injection vulnerability identified in the MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID software, specifically in the /htdocs/api/playlist/shuffle.php endpoint. The vulnerability arises from insufficient input validation or sanitization of the 'playlist' parameter, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary operating system commands. This flaw can be exploited remotely without authentication or user interaction, making it accessible to any attacker with network access to the device. The affected versions range from 2.0 through 2.8.0. The vulnerability's CVSS 4.0 vector (AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P) indicates network attack vector, low attack complexity, no authentication required, no user interaction, and partial impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vendor was contacted but has not issued a patch or mitigation guidance, and no public exploits have been observed yet. The RPi-Jukebox-RFID software is commonly used on Raspberry Pi devices for media playback controlled via RFID tags, often in home automation or educational environments. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands, potentially leading to system compromise, data exposure, or service disruption. Given the public availability of exploit details, the risk of exploitation may increase over time.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Jan 2026, 19:37 UTC

Public exploits and detection1 Exploit-DB entry

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats