CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-31644

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

Published: May 07, 2025 | Modified: Oct 21, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

When running in Appliance mode, a command injection vulnerability exists in an undisclosed iControl REST and BIG-IP TMOS Shell (tmsh) command which may allow an authenticated attacker with administrator role privileges to execute arbitrary system commands. 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 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_advanced_firewall_manager F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_advanced_web_application_firewall F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_analytics F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_application_acceleration_manager F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_application_security_manager F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_application_visibility_and_reporting F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_automation_toolchain F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_carrier-grade_nat F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_container_ingress_services F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_ddos_hybrid_defender F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_domain_name_system F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_edge_gateway F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_fraud_protection_service F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_global_traffic_manager F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_link_controller F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_local_traffic_manager F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_policy_enforcement_manager F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_ssl_orchestrator F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_webaccelerator F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)
Big-ip_websafe F5 15.1.0 (including) 15.1.10.7 (excluding)

Extended Description

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.

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