VulnerabilityPublished 17 Dec 2025Updated 24 Aug 2026

CVE-2025-43873: Johnson Control iSTAR Ultra, iSTAR Ultra SE, iSTAR Ultra G2, iSTAR Ultra G2 SE, iSTAR Edge G2 · OS Command Injection

Affects Johnson Control iSTAR Ultra, iSTAR Ultra SE, iSTAR Ultra G2, iSTAR Ultra G2 SE, iSTAR Edge G2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Dec 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
Johnson Control iSTAR Ultra, iSTAR Ultra SE, iSTAR Ultra G2, iSTAR Ultra G2 SE, iSTAR Edge G2	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to the management interfaces of affected iSTAR Ultra devices using network segmentation and firewall rules, allowing only trusted administrative hosts.
Implement strict access controls and monitoring on devices to detect anomalous command execution or firmware changes.
Deploy intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics targeting OS command injection patterns specific to these devices.
Coordinate with Johnson Controls to obtain and apply security patches or firmware updates as soon as they become available.
Conduct thorough audits of device configurations and logs to identify any signs of compromise or attempted exploitation.
Employ multi-factor authentication and limit administrative privileges to reduce the risk of privilege escalation.
Consider temporary compensating controls such as disabling remote management features if not essential.
Train security teams on the specifics of this vulnerability to enhance detection and response capabilities.

Description

Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to modify firmware and gain full access to the device.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-43873 is substantial. These devices often serve as critical components in physical security infrastructures, controlling access to sensitive facilities such as data centers, government buildings, and industrial plants. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to bypass physical security controls by modifying firmware, potentially enabling unauthorized entry or disabling security mechanisms. This could lead to theft, espionage, sabotage, or disruption of essential services. The compromise of device integrity also undermines trust in security monitoring and incident response capabilities. Given the high integration of Johnson Controls products in Europe’s critical infrastructure sectors, including energy, transportation, and public administration, the vulnerability poses a direct threat to national security and business continuity. Additionally, the ability to execute OS commands remotely without user interaction increases the likelihood of automated or large-scale attacks, amplifying potential damage.

Summary

CVE-2025-43873 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) identified in several Johnson Control iSTAR Ultra series devices, including iSTAR Ultra, iSTAR Ultra SE, iSTAR Ultra G2, iSTAR Ultra G2 SE, and iSTAR Edge G2. The vulnerability arises from improper neutralization of special elements in OS commands, allowing an attacker with low-level privileges to inject and execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system. This can lead to unauthorized modification of device firmware, effectively granting full control over the affected device. The CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.7 reflects a high severity, with network attack vector (AV:N), low attack complexity (AC:L), no user interaction (UI:N), and no privileges required (PR:L) beyond low-level access. The vulnerability impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability at a high level, as attackers can alter firmware and potentially disrupt or manipulate physical access control systems. Although no public exploits are currently known, the nature of the vulnerability makes it a critical risk once weaponized. The affected devices are widely used in physical security environments to control access to buildings and secure areas, making this vulnerability a significant threat to organizational security postures. The lack of available patches at the time of publication necessitates immediate mitigation efforts to reduce exposure.

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 24 Dec 2025, 17:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats