VulnerabilityPublished 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-41758: MBS UBR-01 Mk II · Path Traversal

Affects MBS UBR-01 Mk IISource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High : upgrade to 6.0.1.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0.1.0

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Upgrade UBR-01 Mk II and UBR-02 and UBR-LON to 6.0.1.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
MBSUBR-01 Mk II	Affected <6.0.1.0	Fixed in 6.0.1.0
MBSUBR-02	Affected <6.0.1.0	Fixed in 6.0.1.0
MBSUBR-LON	Affected <6.0.1.0	Fixed in 6.0.1.0

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-41758, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Immediately isolate MBS UBR-01 Mk II devices from untrusted networks or restrict access to the wwupload.cgi endpoint using network segmentation and firewall rules. 2) Employ strict access controls and authentication mechanisms to limit who can interact with the device’s management interfaces. 3) Monitor network traffic for suspicious requests targeting the wwupload.cgi endpoint, particularly those containing path traversal patterns (e.g., '../'). 4) Use intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics to detect exploitation attempts. 5) Regularly audit device configurations and file integrity to detect unauthorized changes. 7) Consider deploying compensating controls such as application-layer gateways or reverse proxies that can sanitize inputs to vulnerable endpoints. 8) Maintain an incident response plan tailored to potential device compromise scenarios. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level restrictions, active monitoring, and vendor engagement.

Description

CVE-2025-41758 is a high-severity path traversal vulnerability in the MBS UBR-01 Mk II device, exploitable via the wwupload.cgi endpoint. A low-privileged remote attacker can leverage this flaw to perform arbitrary file writes, potentially overwriting critical system files. This can lead to full system compromise without requiring user interaction. The vulnerability stems from improper limitation of pathname inputs, classified under CWE-22. Although no public exploits are currently known, the CVSS score of 8.8 indicates a significant risk. The affected product is a specialized device, and no patches have been released yet. Organizations using this device should prioritize mitigation to prevent unauthorized access and control. The threat is particularly relevant to countries with deployments of MBS UBR-01 Mk II devices in critical infrastructure or enterprise environments.

Impact

The exploitation of CVE-2025-41758 can have severe consequences for affected organizations. An attacker gaining the ability to write arbitrary files can overwrite system executables or configuration files, resulting in full device compromise. This can lead to unauthorized access, data theft, disruption of device functionality, or use of the device as a foothold for lateral movement within a network. Given the device’s likely role in network or industrial environments, compromise could disrupt critical services or infrastructure. The remote and low-privilege nature of the exploit increases the attack surface, making it easier for attackers to target vulnerable devices exposed to untrusted networks. The lack of user interaction requirement further elevates the risk. Organizations may face operational downtime, data breaches, and potential regulatory consequences if exploited. The absence of patches means that mitigation relies heavily on network controls and monitoring until a fix is available.

Summary

CVE-2025-41758 is a path traversal vulnerability identified in the MBS UBR-01 Mk II device, specifically within the wwupload.cgi endpoint. This vulnerability arises due to improper validation and limitation of pathname inputs, allowing an attacker with low privileges to craft requests that traverse directories and write arbitrary files on the device’s filesystem. The ability to overwrite arbitrary files can enable attackers to replace or modify system binaries, configuration files, or scripts, ultimately leading to full system compromise. The vulnerability does not require user interaction and can be exploited remotely over the network, increasing its risk profile. The CVSS v3.1 score of 8.8 reflects high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, with low attack complexity and only low privileges required. No patches or mitigations have been officially released at the time of publication, and no known exploits have been observed in the wild. The vulnerability is categorized under CWE-22, highlighting the failure to properly restrict pathname inputs to a safe directory. This flaw is critical for organizations relying on MBS UBR-01 Mk II devices, which may be used in network infrastructure or specialized industrial environments.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

mbs-solutions.de/mbs-2025-0001 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Mar 2026, 19:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats