NVD / CVE Program· CNA VulnCheck

CVE-2025-34312: IPFire < v2.29 Command Injection via URL Filter Blacklist

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 35/100)

The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 2.2% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 82.7% of all records.
Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.

Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

IPFire versions prior to 2.29 (Core Update 198) contain a command injection vulnerability that allows an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands as the 'nobody' user via the BE_NAME parameter when installing a blacklist. When a blacklist is installed the application issues an HTTP POST to /cgi-bin/urlfilter.cgi and interpolates the value of BE_NAME directly into a shell invocation without appropriate sanitation. Crafted input can inject shell metacharacters, leading to arbitrary command execution in the context of the 'nobody' user.

HighCVSS 8.7 · v4.0—No exploit No fix recorded

Published: Oct 28, 2025
Updated: Sep 25, 2026
EPSS: 2.2% · 82th percentile
CWE: CWE-78

Report tools

JSON

Action score

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS: 34 / 40 · 8.7 / 10
CISA KEV: 0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS: 1 / 30 · 2.2%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical impact: total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD: —
CNA · VulnCheck: 8.7; NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
No public exploit code on record
No fixed version yet

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

Vendor	Product	CPE
ipfire	ipfire	cpe:2.3:a:ipfire:ipfire

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

ipfire ipfirebefore 2.29
ipfire ipfire2.29

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (VulnCheck). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

IPFire.org IPFire
- before 2.29 (Core Update 198)affected

Same product

ipfire: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

CVE-2021-33393lfs/backup in IPFire 2.25-core155 does not ensure that /var/ipfire/backup/bin/backup.pl is owned by the root account.
53Plan
CVE-2017-9757IPFire 2.19 has a Remote Command Injection vulnerability in ids.cgi via the OINKCODE parameter, which is mishandled by a shell.
46Plan
CVE-2025-34311IPFire < v2.29 Command Injection via Proxy Report Creation
38Monitor

Published before and after this one in the same product

← EarlierCVE-2025-50976Aug 26, 2025 · IPFire 2.29 DNS management interface (dns.cgi) fails to properly sanitize user-supplied input in the NAMESERVER, REMARK, and TLS_HOSTNAME qu
24Monitor
← EarlierCVE-2025-50975Aug 26, 2025 · IPFire 2.29 web-based firewall interface (firewall.cgi) fails to sanitize several rule parameters such as PROT, SRC_PORT, TGT_PORT, dnatport
21Monitor
Later →CVE-2025-34315Oct 28, 2025 · IPFire < v2.29 Stored XSS via Remote Syslog Server Address
20Monitor

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.

Exploit status

No known public exploit

No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

No dated events beyond publication.

No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

No commit or PR link among the references.

Credits

All researchers

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

Alex WilliamsConverge Technology Solutionsfinder

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

CVE-2025-343110 days apartIPFire < v2.29 Command Injection via Proxy Report Creation
38Monitor
CVE-2025-5097463 days apartThe Calamaris log exporter CGI (/cgi-bin/logs.cgi/calamaris.dat) in IPFire 2.29 does not properly sanitize user-supplied input before incorp
26Monitor

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

—

Bug bounty scope

No known public program.

Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).

Technical details

Attack conditions

Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
A low-privileged account is enough.
No user action is required.
No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: X

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-78 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

CVSS vector

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

nvd-secondary

Root cause

User input is inserted as text into a shell command. The shell may interpret special characters in the input as part of the command.

The bug in code

The whole CWE-78 class

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

1const host = req.body.host;
2exec("ping -c 1 " + host, onResult);

Fixed

1const host = req.body.host;
2if (!/^[a-z0-9.-]{1,253}$/i.test(host)) return res.sendStatus(400);
3execFile("ping", ["-c", "1", host], onResult);

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

Attack patterns (CAPEC)

ATT&CK techniques

—

Change log

No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.

References

bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13887

Show all references (2 more)

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records