VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2025Updated 30 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-60595: UgCS · Command Injection

Affects UgCSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% 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:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Oct 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
GitHubclicksafeae/UgCS`pkg:github/clicksafeae/UgCS`Other threats	Affected =5.13.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to UgCS 5.13.0 instances, limiting exposure to trusted internal networks only.
Implement strict firewall rules and network segmentation to isolate drone control systems from general IT infrastructure and the internet.
Monitor network traffic and system logs for unusual commands or behaviors indicative of exploitation attempts.
Employ application-layer intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) tuned to detect command injection patterns.
Disable or restrict any unnecessary services or interfaces in UgCS to reduce attack surface.
Engage with SPH Engineering for updates on patches or official workarounds and apply them promptly once available.
Conduct thorough security audits and penetration testing focused on drone control environments.
Train operational staff on recognizing signs of compromise and incident response procedures specific to drone control systems.
Consider temporary suspension of critical drone operations if mitigation cannot be assured until patches are released.
Maintain up-to-date backups and recovery plans for affected systems to minimize downtime in case of compromise.

Description

SPH Engineering UgCS 5.13.0 is vulnerable to Arbitary code execution.

Impact

European organizations using UgCS 5.13.0 face significant risks from this vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized remote code execution, enabling attackers to manipulate drone missions, disrupt operations, or steal sensitive data. This threatens the confidentiality and integrity of mission-critical information and could cause operational disruptions in sectors such as infrastructure inspection, agriculture, public safety, and defense. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements lowers the barrier for attackers, increasing the likelihood of exploitation. Additionally, compromised drone control systems could be leveraged for physical sabotage or espionage. The impact extends beyond individual organizations to national security and public safety, especially in countries with advanced drone usage. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive defense, but the high CVSS score underscores the urgency of mitigation.

Summary

CVE-2025-60595 is a critical vulnerability identified in SPH Engineering's UgCS software version 5.13.0, a widely used platform for drone mission planning and control. The vulnerability stems from improper input validation leading to command injection (CWE-77), allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code remotely. The CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.2 reflects the ease of exploitation (network vector, no privileges or user interaction required) and the high impact on integrity, with partial confidentiality loss and no impact on availability. Attackers can potentially take control of the affected system, manipulate drone operations, or exfiltrate sensitive data. Although no exploits have been reported in the wild yet, the vulnerability's characteristics make it a prime target for threat actors. The lack of available patches increases the urgency for organizations to implement compensating controls. The vulnerability affects all installations of UgCS 5.13.0, but specific affected subcomponents or configurations are not detailed. The vulnerability was reserved on 2025-09-26 and published on 2025-10-29, indicating recent disclosure. The absence of patch links suggests that remediation is pending or in progress. Given UgCS's role in critical drone operations, exploitation could have severe operational and security consequences.

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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Nov 2025, 02:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats