CVE-2025-6104
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Wifi-soft UniBox Controller up to 20250506. This affects an unknown part of the file /billing/pms_check.php. The manipulation of the argument ipaddress leads to os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in Wifi-soft UniBox Controller's /billing/pms_check.php where the ipaddress parameter is not sanitized before being passed to system commands, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the vulnerable billing scriptSearch for the file /billing/pms_check.php in the web root directory. If the file does not exist, the system may not be using the billing module.Affected if The file /billing/pms_check.php exists on the server.
-
Verify the billing module is accessibleCheck if the /billing/ directory is accessible via the web server. Attempt a HEAD request to /billing/pms_check.php or check web server access logs for requests to this endpoint.Affected if The billing endpoint is reachable over HTTP/HTTPS.
-
Inspect the pms_check.php code for unsafe parameter handlingOpen /billing/pms_check.php and examine how the 'ipaddress' parameter is handled. Look for patterns like shell_exec(), exec(), system(), passthru(), or backtick operators where $_GET['ipaddress'] or $_POST['ipaddress'] is directly interpolated into a command string.Affected if The code passes the ipaddress parameter directly to a shell execution function without sanitization.
-
Confirm the ipaddress parameter is not validatedReview the same file for input validation functions such as filter_var(), preg_match() for IP validation, or any allowlist logic applied to the ipaddress parameter before shell execution.Affected if No IP address format validation or allowlist filtering is performed on the ipaddress parameter before it is used in shell commands.
A user is affected if the UniBox Controller billing module is installed, the /billing/pms_check.php file exists, and the ipaddress parameter is passed unsanitized to shell execution functions.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation/whitelisting for the ipaddress parameter or use parameterized commands; consider network segmentation and WAF rules as interim protection given the public exploit and unresponsive vendor.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6104 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-6104 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data