Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-37157 is a medium-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Hpe Arubaos-Cx. Its CVSS base score is 6.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 49th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-2025-37157 is a command injection vulnerability in the AOS-CX Operating System. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated remote attacker to conduct remote code execution (RCE) on the affected system. The vulnerability is linked to CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code) and CWE-78 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.7 (AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N). It was published on 2025-11-18.
An authenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to achieve RCE. The CVSS vector indicates local attack vector with high attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, unchanged scope, high impact to confidentiality and integrity, and no impact to availability.
Mitigation details are available in the HPE security bulletin at https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw04888en_us&docLocale=en_US.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-198069
Vulnerability Data
A command injection vulnerability exists in the AOS-CX Operating System. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated remote attacker to conduct a Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the affected system.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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 target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
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).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.