CVE-2025-27079VulnerabilityPublished 8 Apr 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-27079: Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) AOS-10 AP · OS Command Injection

Affects Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) AOS-10 APSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 8 Apr 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
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) AOS-10 AP	Affected =10.7.0.0 =10.4.0.0 =8.12.0.0 =8.10.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Restrict CLI access: Limit command line interface access to trusted administrators only, using network segmentation and access control lists (ACLs) to reduce exposure. 2. Enforce strong authentication: Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all administrative access to the APs to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 3. Monitor logs and network traffic: Enable detailed logging on APs and monitor for unusual command execution or access patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 4. Apply principle of least privilege: Ensure that users with CLI access have only the minimum necessary privileges to perform their tasks. 5. Network segmentation: Isolate management interfaces from general user networks to prevent unauthorized access. 6. Stay updated: Regularly check for firmware updates or patches from HPE and apply them promptly once available. 7. Incident response readiness: Prepare to respond to potential compromises by having backup configurations and recovery procedures in place. 8. Conduct vulnerability scans and penetration testing focused on these devices to identify potential exploitation paths.

Description

A vulnerability in the file creation process on the command line interface of AOS-8 Instant and AOS-10 AP could allow an authenticated remote attacker to perform remote code execution (RCE). Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the underlying operating system leading to potential system compromise.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-27079 is the potential for remote code execution on HPE AOS-8 Instant and AOS-10 AP devices, which can lead to full system compromise. Attackers gaining control over these access points could intercept, manipulate, or disrupt wireless network traffic, leading to data breaches or lateral movement within corporate networks. Confidentiality and integrity of network communications are at risk, especially in environments where these APs serve critical wireless infrastructure. Although availability is not directly affected, compromised devices could be used as footholds for further attacks or to disrupt network operations indirectly. Organizations relying on these devices for secure wireless access, including enterprises, government agencies, and service providers, face increased risk of espionage, data theft, or sabotage. The requirement for authenticated access limits exposure but insider threats or compromised credentials could facilitate exploitation. The lack of available patches increases the window of vulnerability, emphasizing the need for immediate mitigation.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw04844en_us&docLocale=en_US (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 19:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats