VulnerabilityPublished 26 Aug 2025Updated 27 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-50974: IPFire · OS Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% 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 26 Aug 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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on restricting access to the vulnerable CGI endpoint. Network administrators should ensure that the /cgi-bin/logs.cgi/calamaris.dat interface is not exposed to untrusted networks, ideally limiting access to trusted internal IP ranges or via VPN. Implement strict firewall rules to block external access to the IPFire management interface. Until an official patch is released, consider disabling the Calamaris log exporter CGI if it is not essential for operations. Additionally, implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious input containing shell metacharacters targeting the vulnerable parameters. Regularly monitor logs for unusual command execution patterns or unexpected parameter values. Organizations should also prepare to apply patches promptly once available and conduct thorough security assessments of IPFire deployments to identify any signs of compromise. Employ network segmentation to isolate IPFire devices from critical assets and limit lateral movement in case of exploitation. Finally, educate network administrators about this vulnerability and the importance of input validation in web-facing services.

Description

The Calamaris log exporter CGI (/cgi-bin/logs.cgi/calamaris.dat) in IPFire 2.29 does not properly sanitize user-supplied input before incorporating parameter values into a shell command. An unauthenticated remote attacker can inject arbitrary OS commands by embedding shell metacharacters in any of the following parameters BYTE_UNIT, DAY_BEGIN, DAY_END, HIST_LEVEL, MONTH_BEGIN, MONTH_END, NUM_CONTENT, NUM_DOMAINS, NUM_HOSTS, NUM_URLS, PERF_INTERVAL, YEAR_BEGIN, YEAR_END.

Impact

For European organizations using IPFire 2.29, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. IPFire is commonly deployed as a firewall and router solution in small to medium enterprises and some larger organizations, often serving as a critical network security component. Exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands remotely without authentication, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive network data, manipulation or exfiltration of logs, and further compromise of internal systems. This could disrupt network security monitoring and incident response capabilities. Given the medium severity, the impact on confidentiality and integrity is notable, though availability is not directly affected. However, successful exploitation could be a stepping stone for more severe attacks, including privilege escalation or persistent backdoors. European organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure, which rely on IPFire for perimeter defense, could face increased risk of data breaches and regulatory non-compliance, especially under GDPR mandates. The lack of user interaction and authentication requirements makes this vulnerability easier to exploit remotely, increasing the threat surface for organizations with externally accessible IPFire management interfaces or poorly segmented networks.

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

github.com/4rdr/proofs/blob/main/info/IPFire-2.29-Command-Injection.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Sep 2025, 01:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats