VulnerabilityPublished 7 Aug 2025Updated 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-47188: Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · public detection template (Nuclei) · 53% EPSS · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 53.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 98% 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:L/I:L/A:N

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

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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 7 Aug 2025
Detectable: evidence found.
nuclei template: Mitel 6000 - OS Command Injection
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 Mitel SIP phones and conference units on dedicated VLANs with strict access controls to limit exposure to untrusted networks. 2. Implement strict firewall rules to restrict inbound and outbound traffic to and from these devices, allowing only trusted management and signaling sources. 3. Monitor network traffic for anomalous command injection patterns or unusual device behavior using IDS/IPS solutions tuned for VoIP environments. 4. Disable any unnecessary services or interfaces on the affected devices to reduce the attack surface. 5. Regularly audit device configurations and logs for signs of unauthorized changes or access attempts. 6. Engage with Mitel support or authorized vendors to obtain firmware updates or patches as soon as they become available. 7. Consider temporary mitigation by applying input validation proxies or network-level filtering to sanitize commands directed at these devices if feasible. 8. Educate IT and security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid detection and response in case of exploitation attempts.

Description

A vulnerability in the Mitel 6800 Series, 6900 Series, and 6900w Series SIP Phones through 6.4 SP4 (R6.4.0.4006), and the 6970 Conference Unit through 6.4 SP4 (R6.4.0.4006) or version V1 R0.1.0, could allow an unauthenticated attacker to conduct a command injection attack due to insufficient parameter sanitization. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands within the context of the phone, leading to disclosure or modification of sensitive configuration data or affecting device availability and operation.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to enterprise telephony infrastructure, particularly in sectors relying heavily on Mitel SIP phones and conference units for communication, such as government, finance, healthcare, and large enterprises. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive configuration data, potentially exposing internal network details or enabling further lateral movement. Modification of device configurations could disrupt telephony services, impacting business continuity and operational efficiency. Given that these devices are often integrated into critical communication systems, any compromise could degrade trust in communication channels or facilitate espionage. The lack of authentication requirement and remote exploitability increases the threat surface, especially for organizations with exposed or poorly segmented voice networks. Although no availability impact is directly indicated, command injection could be leveraged to cause device instability or denial of service, further affecting operational capabilities.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Sep 2025, 00:37 UTC

Public exploits and detectiona Nuclei detection template

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats