VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-35004: Microhard IPn4Gii / Bullet-LTE Firmware · Argument Injection

Affects Microhard IPn4Gii / Bullet-LTE FirmwareSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 62% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 Jun 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Microhard IPn4Gii / Bullet-LTE Firmware	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate network segmentation: Isolate Microhard IPn4Gii and Bullet-LTE devices within dedicated network segments with strict access controls to limit exposure.
Restrict access to management interfaces: Ensure that only authorized personnel can access the AT command interface, preferably through secure channels such as VPNs or jump hosts with multi-factor authentication.
Monitor and log all AT command usage: Implement detailed logging and real-time monitoring to detect anomalous or unauthorized command injection attempts.
Employ strict authentication and authorization policies: Even though the vulnerability requires low privileges, enforcing strong authentication mechanisms can reduce risk.
Disable or restrict the use of the AT+MFIP command if not required for operational purposes.
Engage with Microhard for updates: Maintain close contact with the vendor to obtain patches or firmware updates as soon as they become available.
Conduct regular vulnerability assessments and penetration testing focused on these devices to identify exploitation attempts.
Implement intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) tuned to detect command injection patterns targeting these devices.
Prepare incident response plans specific to device compromise scenarios to minimize impact in case of exploitation.

Description

Products that incorporate the Microhard BulletLTE-NA2 and IPn4Gii-NA2 are vulnerable to a post-authentication command injection issue in the AT+MFIP command that can lead to privilege escalation. This is an instance of CWE-88, "Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')," and is estimated as a CVSS 7.1 (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N). This issue has not been generally fixed at the time of this CVE record's first publishing.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be significant, especially for those relying on Microhard IPn4Gii or Bullet-LTE devices for critical communications infrastructure. These devices are commonly used in industrial automation, transportation networks, and remote telemetry systems. Exploitation could allow attackers to escalate privileges and execute unauthorized commands, potentially leading to data breaches, manipulation of network traffic, or disruption of services. This could affect sectors such as energy, manufacturing, logistics, and public transportation, where LTE-based communication devices are integral. Given the local attack vector and requirement for authentication, insider threats or attackers who have gained initial access to the network could leverage this vulnerability to deepen their foothold. The lack of available patches increases the urgency for organizations to implement compensating controls. Additionally, compromised devices could be used as pivot points for lateral movement within networks, increasing the risk of broader compromise. The confidentiality and integrity of sensitive operational data could be severely impacted, leading to regulatory and compliance challenges under frameworks like GDPR and NIS Directive.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jul 2025, 01:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats