VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-60250: Unitree Go2 · Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key

Affects Unitree Go2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 Sep 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Unitree Go2	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should first monitor Unitree's official channels for firmware updates or patches addressing the hard-coded key issue and apply them promptly once available. In the absence of patches, organizations should implement compensating controls such as restricting physical and Bluetooth access to the robots by enforcing strict access controls and using Bluetooth signal jamming or shielding in sensitive areas to prevent unauthorized proximity. Network segmentation and monitoring of BLE traffic can help detect anomalous communication attempts. Additionally, organizations should consider deploying endpoint detection solutions capable of identifying unusual commands or behaviors from the robots. For future procurement, organizations should require vendors to follow secure cryptographic practices, including dynamic key management and secure key storage mechanisms. Finally, conducting regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on BLE communications and robotic control interfaces will help identify and remediate related weaknesses.

Description

Unitree Go2, G1, H1, and B2 devices through 2025-09-20 decrypt BLE packet data by using the df98b715d5c6ed2b25817b6f2554124a key and the 2841ae97419c2973296a0d4bdfe19a4f IV.

Impact

For European organizations deploying Unitree robotic devices, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized manipulation of robotic operations or interception of BLE communications. Although confidentiality is not directly impacted, the integrity of commands and data exchanged with the devices can be compromised, potentially causing operational disruptions or safety risks if robots are used in sensitive environments such as manufacturing, logistics, or research facilities. The requirement for adjacent network access limits remote exploitation but does not eliminate risk in environments where attackers can gain physical proximity, such as warehouses, campuses, or public spaces. The scope change in the CVSS vector suggests that a successful exploit could affect components beyond the initially targeted BLE communication channel, potentially impacting the broader system controlling the robot. Given the increasing adoption of robotics in European industries and research institutions, this vulnerability could undermine trust in robotic automation and necessitate additional security controls to prevent misuse.

CWE-321Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a hard-coded, unchangeable cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
Prevention schemes mirror that of hard-coded password storage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Sep 2025, 01:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-321

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats