Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Appliance mode BIG-IP iControl REST and tmsh vulnerability

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2025-31644CWE-77

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
8.5
EPSS
24.3% Top 2%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2025-05-07
When running in Appliance mode, a command injection vulnerability exists in an undisclosed iControl REST and BIG-IP TMOS Shell (tmsh) command which may allow an authenticated attacker with administrator role privileges to execute arbitrary… More

When running in Appliance mode, a command injection vulnerability exists in an undisclosed iControl REST and BIG-IP TMOS Shell (tmsh) command which may allow an authenticated attacker with administrator role privileges to execute arbitrary system commands. A successful exploit can allow the attacker to cross a security boundary.  Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-31644: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
High · 8.5 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with high privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and integrity; other systems can also be hit (low impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability).

Over the internetAdmin login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySerious impact
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.
    None
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an administrator-level account.
    High
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)The component keeps working normally.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have some data read.
    Low
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have some data changed.
    Low
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can be slowed down or interrupted.
    Low
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2025-05-07
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2025-05-27
    Cloudflare ships a rule
    F5 Big IP - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-31644

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed Rules1 quoteRule off by default

First rule 2025-05-27, 20 days after the CVE was published.

2025-05-27New rule…ebafdfe6Default: DisabledSource
F5 Big IP - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-31644. Previous action: Log. New action: Disabled. This is a New Detection
AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.