CVE-2025-35027VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2025Updated 7 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-35027: Unitree Go2 · OS Command Injection

Affects Unitree Go2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 2.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 85% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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 26 Sep 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 2026-10-25.

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
Unitree Go2	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediately restrict BLE module access to trusted devices only, using strong authentication and encryption to prevent unauthorized WiFi configuration attempts. 2. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all WiFi configuration parameters, especially those received via BLE, to neutralize special characters that could lead to command injection. 3. Monitor and log all WiFi configuration changes and service restarts to detect anomalous or unauthorized activities. 4. Isolate robotic devices on segmented networks with limited access to critical infrastructure to reduce attack surface and lateral movement risk. 5. Deploy host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) on robots if supported, to detect suspicious command executions. 6. Coordinate with Unitree Robotics for timely firmware updates and apply patches as soon as they become available. 7. Conduct security audits and penetration testing focused on BLE interfaces and WiFi configuration mechanisms. 8. Educate operational staff on the risks of BLE-based configuration and enforce strict operational security policies around robot management.

Description

Multiple robotic products by Unitree sharing a common firmware, including the Go2, G1, H1, and B2 devices, contain a command injection vulnerability. By setting a malicious string when configuring the on-board WiFi via a BLE module of an affected robot, then triggering a restart of the WiFi service, an attacker can ultimately trigger commands to be run as root via the wpa_supplicant_restart.sh shell script. All Unitree models use firmware derived from the same codebase (MIT Cheetah), and the two major forks are the G1 (humanoid) and Go2 (quadruped) branches.

Impact

For European organizations deploying Unitree robotic products, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to operational security and data confidentiality. Robots used in industrial automation, research labs, logistics, or security patrols could be commandeered by attackers to execute arbitrary commands as root, potentially leading to data theft, sabotage, or disruption of critical robotic functions. The ability to execute commands at root level without user interaction increases the risk of stealthy persistent attacks. Compromise of these robots could also serve as a pivot point for lateral movement within enterprise networks, especially in environments where robots are integrated with other critical systems. The impact on availability is less direct but could occur if attackers disable WiFi or robot functions. Given the growing adoption of robotics in European manufacturing and research sectors, the threat could affect sensitive intellectual property and operational continuity. The lack of known exploits currently provides a window for mitigation, but the vulnerability’s nature suggests it could be weaponized quickly once exploited in the wild.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Oct 2025, 00:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats