Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-23239 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in F5 Big-Ip Access Policy Manager. Its CVSS base score is 8.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 48% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-23239 is an authenticated remote command injection vulnerability (CWE-77) affecting an undisclosed iControl REST endpoint in F5 BIG-IP systems when running in Appliance mode. It requires the attacker to be logged in with a highly-privileged role. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.7 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N), indicating high severity due to network accessibility, low attack complexity, required high privileges, no user interaction, changed scope, and high impacts to confidentiality and integrity.
An attacker with a highly-privileged account can exploit this remotely by sending malicious input to the vulnerable iControl REST endpoint, enabling command injection. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to cross a security boundary, potentially leading to unauthorized access, data exfiltration, or system modification within the affected F5 environment.
The F5 security advisory at https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000138757 provides details on affected versions, patches, and mitigation steps. Note that software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated for fixes.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-3155
Vulnerability Data
When running in Appliance mode, and logged into a highly-privileged role, 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…
more
have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.