CVE-2025-15502VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jan 2026Updated 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-15502: Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management System · OS Command Injection

Affects Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management SystemSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 6.0% 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:N/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: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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 10 Jan 2026
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
SangforOperation and Maintenance Management System	Affected =3.0.0 =3.0.1 =3.0.2 =3.0.3 =3.0.4 =3.0.5 =3.0.6 =3.0.7 =3.0.8	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Since no official patches are available from the vendor, organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. These include restricting network access to the Sangfor management system to trusted internal IPs only, using network segmentation and firewalls to limit exposure. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious command injection patterns targeting the Hostname parameter. Conduct thorough input validation and sanitization on any user-controllable parameters if custom integrations exist. Monitor logs for unusual command execution or unexpected system behavior. Consider deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions on the host running the system to detect post-exploitation activity. Organizations should also engage with Sangfor support channels for updates and consider alternative solutions if remediation is delayed. Regular backups and incident response plans should be updated to handle potential compromise scenarios.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management System up to 3.0.8. The affected element is the function SessionController of the file /isomp-protocol/protocol/session. Such manipulation of the argument Hostname leads to os command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The potential impact of CVE-2025-15502 is significant for organizations using the Sangfor Operation and Maintenance Management System, especially those managing critical infrastructure or sensitive operational environments. Successful exploitation allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands, which can lead to full system compromise, unauthorized data access, disruption of maintenance operations, and potential lateral movement within the network. Given the system’s role in operation and maintenance, attackers could disrupt monitoring, management, or automated maintenance tasks, impacting availability and operational integrity. The lack of authentication requirements lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing risk. Although the CVSS score is medium, the real-world impact could escalate depending on the deployment context, especially in environments where this system has privileged network access or controls critical infrastructure components.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Feb 2026, 22:40 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats