CVE-2025-50989VulnerabilityPublished 27 Aug 2025Updated 12 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-50989: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · 10% EPSS · CVSS 8.8 High · fixed in 25.1.8 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 10.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 95% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 25.1.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 27 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 2026-10-26.

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

European organizations should immediately audit their OPNsense deployments to identify affected versions, particularly version 25.1. In the interim, restrict administrative access to the OPNsense web interface using network segmentation, VPNs, or IP whitelisting to reduce exposure. Enforce strong multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all administrator accounts to mitigate risks from credential compromise. Conduct thorough input validation reviews and consider implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block command injection patterns targeting the Bridge Interface Edit endpoint. Regularly audit logs for suspicious POST requests or unusual command executions. Additionally, consider deploying intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) tuned to detect exploitation attempts. Organizations should also review and harden system configurations to minimize the privileges of the web service where feasible, limiting the impact of potential exploitation. Finally, establish incident response plans specifically addressing firewall compromise scenarios to ensure rapid containment and recovery.

Description

OPNsense before 25.1.8 contains an authenticated command injection vulnerability in its Bridge Interface Edit endpoint (interfaces_bridge_edit.php). The span POST parameter is concatenated into a system-level command without proper sanitization or escaping, allowing an administrator to inject arbitrary shell operators and payloads. Successful exploitation results in remote code execution with the privileges of the web service (typically root), potentially leading to full system compromise or lateral movement. This vulnerability arises from inadequate input validation and improper handling of user-supplied data in backend command invocations.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability presents a substantial risk to network security and operational continuity. OPNsense is commonly deployed in enterprise, governmental, and critical infrastructure environments across Europe due to its open-source nature and robust firewall capabilities. Successful exploitation could lead to full system compromise of firewall devices, undermining perimeter defenses and potentially exposing internal networks to further attacks. Confidentiality could be severely impacted as attackers might intercept or manipulate network traffic. Integrity and availability are also at risk since attackers could alter firewall rules, disable security controls, or cause denial of service by disrupting network connectivity. The ability to execute commands as root amplifies the threat, enabling attackers to establish persistent footholds or pivot to other systems. This vulnerability could also facilitate espionage, data theft, or sabotage, especially in sectors like finance, healthcare, energy, and government agencies. The requirement for administrator authentication somewhat limits exposure but does not eliminate risk, as credential compromise or insider threats could enable exploitation. Additionally, the lack of public exploits currently may lead to a false sense of security, underscoring the need for proactive mitigation.

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 27 Aug 2025, 14:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats