Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-50989 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Opnsense Opnsense. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 6% 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.
OPNsense before version 25.1.8 contains an authenticated command injection vulnerability in the Bridge Interface Edit endpoint at interfaces_bridge_edit.php. The span POST parameter is directly concatenated into a system command without sanitization or escaping, enabling an administrator to supply arbitrary shell operators and payloads. The flaw is tracked under CWE-78 and CWE-77 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.1.
An authenticated administrator can exploit the issue over the network to achieve remote code execution with the privileges of the web service, typically root. Successful exploitation can result in full system compromise or facilitate lateral movement within the environment.
The official OPNsense changelog for release 25.1.8 addresses the vulnerability through improved input handling in the affected endpoint. Public proof-of-concept material confirms the injection vector via the span parameter and demonstrates unauthenticated command execution after authentication.
The associated EPSS score remains flat at 0.0149 with no material increase observed after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25898
Vulnerability Data
OPNsense before 25.1.8 contains an authenticated command injection vulnerability in its Bridge Interface Edit endpoint (interfaces_bridge_edit.php). The span POST parameter is concatenated into a system-level command without proper sanitization or escaping, allowing an administrator to inject arbitrary shell operators and…
more
payloads. Successful exploitation results in remote code execution with the privileges of the web service (typically root), potentially leading to full system compromise or lateral movement. This vulnerability arises from inadequate input validation and improper handling of user-supplied data in backend command invocations.
- 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 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.
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.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
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.