VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-45987: Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 1.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 79% 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 to limit potential lateral movement in case of compromise. 2. Restrict management interface access: Ensure that router management interfaces are not exposed to the internet or untrusted networks. Use firewall rules to restrict access to trusted IP addresses only. 3. Monitor network traffic for anomalies: Deploy network monitoring to detect unusual DNS queries or command patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 4. Disable remote management features if not required: Turn off remote administration capabilities on affected devices to reduce attack surface. 5. Implement strong authentication and access controls: If remote management is necessary, enforce strong passwords and multi-factor authentication where supported. 6. Vendor engagement and patch management: Actively monitor Blink’s official channels for firmware updates addressing these vulnerabilities and apply patches promptly upon release. 7. Incident response preparedness: Develop and test incident response plans specific to router compromise scenarios, including device replacement or factory reset procedures. 8. Use alternative DNS configurations: Temporarily configure routers to use trusted DNS servers manually to prevent DNS hijacking until patches are available. 9. Inventory and asset management: Identify all affected Blink router models in the environment to prioritize mitigation efforts. 10. Educate users and administrators on the risks and signs of router compromise to enable early detection and reporting.

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 were discovered to contain multiple command injection vulnerabilities via the dns1 and dns2 parameters in the bs_SetDNSInfo function.

Impact

For European organizations, the exploitation of these command injection vulnerabilities could have significant consequences. Compromised routers can serve as entry points into corporate or home networks, enabling attackers to intercept sensitive communications, manipulate DNS queries to redirect users to malicious sites (DNS hijacking), or launch further attacks within the network. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and home offices relying on these Blink router models are particularly at risk, as they may lack robust network segmentation or advanced security monitoring. The integrity and availability of network services could be disrupted if attackers modify router configurations or cause device failures. Confidentiality breaches could occur through interception or redirection of traffic. The impact is amplified in sectors with critical infrastructure or sensitive data, such as finance, healthcare, and government agencies, especially if these routers are used in branch offices or remote locations. Additionally, the absence of patches or mitigations at the time of disclosure increases the window of exposure. The threat is heightened if attackers exploit exposed management interfaces or leverage phishing or social engineering to gain access to the network segment hosting these devices.

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_dns1%20Unauthorized%20command%20injection/The%20LB-LINK_dns1%20command%20is%20used%20to%20inject%20the%20information.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