CVE-2025-35027
Command Injection in Unitree G1 Firmware ≤ 1.4.4
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-35027 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Unitree G1 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 15% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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-2025-35027 is a command injection vulnerability present in multiple Unitree robotic platforms, including the Go2, G1, H1, and B2 models. These devices share a common firmware base derived from the MIT Cheetah codebase, with the primary forks being the G1 humanoid and Go2 quadruped branches. The flaw resides in the handling of WiFi configuration strings received over the on-board BLE module; when a malicious value is supplied and the WiFi service is subsequently restarted, the wpa_supplicant_restart.sh script executes the attacker-controlled input as root.
An attacker with adjacent-network access and limited privileges can exploit the issue by writing a crafted string through the BLE interface and forcing a WiFi service restart. Successful exploitation grants the ability to run arbitrary commands as root, resulting in full control over confidentiality and integrity of the affected robot while leaving availability unaffected. The CVSS 7.3 score reflects the low attack complexity and the absence of required user interaction.
Public references, including proof-of-concept material at github.com/Bin4ry/UniPwn and coverage at spectrum.ieee.org and takeonme.org, document the vulnerability but do not detail vendor-supplied patches or configuration workarounds in the provided sources.
EPSS scores for the CVE rose from a low baseline to a recorded peak of 0.0104, indicating measurable exploitation interest after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-31217
Vulnerability Data
Multiple robotic products by Unitree sharing a common firmware, including the Go2, G1, H1, and B2 devices, contain a command injection vulnerability. By setting a malicious string when configuring the on-board WiFi via a BLE module of an affected robot,…
more
then triggering a restart of the WiFi service, an attacker can ultimately trigger commands to be run as root via the wpa_supplicant_restart.sh shell script. All Unitree models use firmware derived from the same codebase (MIT Cheetah), and the two major forks are the G1 (humanoid) and Go2 (quadruped) branches.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.