CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-23239

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

Published: Feb 05, 2025 | Modified: Aug 06, 2025
CVSS 3.x
9.1
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

When running in Appliance mode, an authenticated remote command injection vulnerability exists in an undisclosed iControl REST endpoint. A successful exploit can allow the attacker to cross a security boundary.

Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

Weakness

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.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Big-ip_access_policy_manager F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_advanced_firewall_manager F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_analytics F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_application_acceleration_manager F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_application_security_manager F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_domain_name_system F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_fraud_protection_service F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_global_traffic_manager F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_link_controller F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_local_traffic_manager F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)
Big-ip_policy_enforcement_manager F5 17.1.1 (including) 17.1.1 (including)

Extended Description

Command injection vulnerabilities typically occur when:

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks. Command injection is a common problem with wrapper programs.

Potential Mitigations

  • 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.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References