VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-35006: 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, 15:59 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 63% 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

Since no official patches are available, European organizations should implement compensating controls to mitigate risk. These include: 1) Restricting access to the management interfaces of affected devices strictly to trusted personnel and networks, using network segmentation and strong access control lists (ACLs). 2) Enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for device management to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 3) Monitoring and logging all AT command usage, especially AT+MFPORTFWD commands, to detect anomalous or unauthorized activity. 4) Applying strict input validation and command filtering at network gateways or proxy devices if possible, to prevent injection attempts. 5) Conducting regular audits of device configurations and privilege assignments to minimize the number of users with elevated privileges. 6) Preparing incident response plans specifically addressing potential exploitation scenarios. 7) Engaging with the vendor for updates and patches, and planning for timely deployment once available. 8) Considering device replacement or firmware upgrades if the risk cannot be adequately mitigated in critical environments.

Description

Products that incorporate the Microhard BulletLTE-NA2 and IPn4Gii-NA2 are vulnerable to a post-authentication command injection issue in the AT+MFPORTFWD 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 can be substantial, particularly for those relying on Microhard IPn4Gii and Bullet-LTE modules in critical communication infrastructure. These devices are often used in industrial IoT, remote telemetry, and private LTE networks, which are common in sectors such as manufacturing, utilities, transportation, and emergency services. Exploitation could allow attackers to escalate privileges and alter network forwarding rules, potentially intercepting, redirecting, or disrupting sensitive communications. This could lead to data breaches compromising confidentiality, manipulation of operational data affecting integrity, and indirect operational disruptions. Given the vulnerability requires local access and authentication, insider threats or attackers who have gained initial footholds in the network could leverage this flaw to deepen their control. The lack of a patch increases the window of exposure. Additionally, the high confidentiality and integrity impact ratings suggest that sensitive data and system configurations are at risk, which could have regulatory and compliance implications under GDPR and other European cybersecurity frameworks.

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, 11:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats