CVE-2025-53637VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-53637: meshtastic firmware · OS Command Injection

Affects meshtastic firmwareSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium · fixed in 2.6.6 : update meshtastic firmware when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.6.6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 10 Jul 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. Upgrade Meshtastic firmware to version 2.6.6 or later, where this vulnerability is patched. 2. Review and restrict the use of the pull_request_target event in GitHub Actions workflows, as it runs with elevated permissions; consider replacing it with safer alternatives like pull_request or workflow_run events that have limited privileges. 3. Implement strict input validation and sanitization for any user-controlled data interpolated into shell commands within CI/CD pipelines. 4. Employ repository protection rules to limit who can trigger workflows with elevated permissions, including restricting forked repository pull requests from triggering sensitive workflows. 5. Monitor CI/CD pipeline logs for unusual or unexpected command executions or pull request activity. 6. Conduct regular security audits of automated workflows and infrastructure as code to detect unsafe coding patterns. 7. Educate development teams on secure GitHub Actions practices and the risks of command injection in automation scripts. 8. Consider implementing signed commits and reproducible builds to detect unauthorized code changes introduced via compromised workflows.

Description

Meshtastic is an open source mesh networking solution. The main_matrix.yml GitHub Action is triggered by the pull_request_target event, which has extensive permissions, and can be initiated by an attacker who forked the repository and created a pull request. In the shell code execution part, user-controlled input is interpolated unsafely into the code. If this were to be exploited, attackers could inject unauthorized code into the repository. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.6.6.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing Meshtastic firmware in their mesh networking infrastructure, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the software development lifecycle and supply chain integrity rather than direct operational disruption. Exploitation could allow attackers to inject malicious code into the repository, potentially leading to compromised firmware releases or backdoored updates distributed to end devices. This could undermine confidentiality if sensitive data is exfiltrated via compromised firmware or integrity if unauthorized code modifications propagate to production devices. Although the direct impact on availability is minimal, the broader implications for trust in the firmware and network security are significant. Organizations relying on Meshtastic for critical communication, especially in sectors like emergency services, public safety, or remote connectivity in Europe, could face reputational damage and operational risks if compromised firmware is deployed. The medium severity score indicates a moderate risk level, but the potential for supply chain compromise elevates the importance of addressing this vulnerability promptly.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 22:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats