VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-45986: Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 1.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 76% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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 13 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 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

AI-suggested

1. Immediate network segmentation: Isolate affected Blink routers from critical network segments and restrict management interface access to trusted administrators only, preferably via VPN or secure management channels. 2. Monitor network traffic for unusual commands or patterns targeting the 'mac' parameter or related management functions. 3. Disable or restrict the functionality of MAC address blacklisting features if not essential, to reduce the attack surface. 4. Implement strict input validation and filtering at network ingress points to detect and block suspicious payloads targeting router management interfaces. 5. Engage with Blink router vendors for firmware updates or patches; if unavailable, consider temporary replacement of vulnerable devices with alternative hardware. 6. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on router management interfaces to detect exploitation attempts. 7. Maintain up-to-date inventory of all network devices to quickly identify and remediate affected models. 8. Employ network intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) tuned to detect command injection attempts targeting router management protocols. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on operational controls, network architecture adjustments, and proactive monitoring tailored to the specific vulnerability vector.

Description

Blink routers BL-WR9000 V2.4.9 , BL-AC2100_AZ3 V1.0.4, BL-X10_AC8 v1.0.5 , BL-LTE300 v1.2.3, BL-F1200_AT1 v1.0.0, BL-X26_AC8 v1.2.8, BLAC450M_AE4 v4.0.0 and BL-X26_DA3 v1.2.7 werediscovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the mac parameter in the bs_SetMacBlack function.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to network infrastructure security. Compromise of Blink routers via command injection can lead to unauthorized control over network traffic, interception of sensitive data, and disruption of services. This is particularly critical for enterprises and public sector organizations relying on these routers for secure connectivity. The integrity and availability of internal networks can be severely impacted, potentially leading to data breaches, lateral movement by attackers, and denial of service conditions. Additionally, compromised routers can be used as footholds for launching further attacks within corporate or governmental networks. The absence of known exploits currently reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability's nature suggests that exploitation could become widespread once proof-of-concept code is developed. European organizations with Blink routers in critical infrastructure, telecommunications, or government sectors are especially vulnerable due to the strategic importance of their networks and the potential impact of disruption or espionage.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended 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.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
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
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/glkfc/IoT-Vulnerability/blob/main/LB-LINK/LB-LINK_mac%20Unauthorized%20command%20injection/LB-LINK_mac%20command%20injection.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Jun 2025, 11:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats