VulnerabilityPublished 27 Sep 2025Updated 29 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-11073: Keyfactor RG-EW5100BE · Command Injection

Affects Keyfactor RG-EW5100BESource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 1.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 79% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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: High
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: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
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 27 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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

Given the absence of official patches, European organizations should immediately inventory their Keyfactor RG-EW5100BE devices and verify firmware versions. If vulnerable versions are detected, organizations should consider the following mitigations: 1) Isolate affected devices from untrusted networks to limit exposure to remote attacks. 2) Implement strict network access controls and firewall rules to restrict access to the /cgi-bin/luci/api/cmd endpoint, allowing only trusted management hosts. 3) Monitor network traffic and device logs for unusual POST requests targeting the vulnerable endpoint, indicating potential exploitation attempts. 4) Disable or restrict the vulnerable API endpoint if possible, or apply custom filtering on input parameters to prevent command injection. 5) Engage with Keyfactor support for guidance and request expedited patch releases. 6) Employ network segmentation to reduce the impact of a compromised device. 7) Prepare incident response plans specifically addressing potential device compromise scenarios. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific vulnerable component and attack vector.

Description

A vulnerability was detected in Keyfactor RG-EW5100BE EW_3.0B11P280_EW5100BE-PRO_12183019. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/luci/api/cmd of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument url results in command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be significant depending on the deployment of the Keyfactor RG-EW5100BE devices within their infrastructure. Since the device appears to be a network or security appliance, successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized command execution, enabling attackers to manipulate device configurations, intercept or redirect network traffic, or disrupt services. This could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data and impact availability of critical network functions. Organizations in sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, which rely heavily on secure network devices, could face operational disruptions and data breaches. Furthermore, if these devices are part of a larger security framework, their compromise could serve as a pivot point for lateral movement within corporate networks, increasing the risk of widespread compromise. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate risk, but the lack of authentication requirement for exploitation (if confirmed) elevates the threat level. European entities must assess their exposure based on device usage and firmware versions.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…