Focus on ghostrobotics vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 16 Jan 2026, 23:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with ghostrobotics. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.
For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.
Total ghostrobotics CVEs: 3
Earliest CVE date: 22 Oct 2025, 09:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 22 Oct 2025, 09:15 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2025-41110
30-day Count (Rolling): 0
365-day Count (Rolling): 3
Calendar-based Variation
Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.
Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%
Average CVSS: 0.0
Max CVSS: 0
Critical CVEs (≥9): 0
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 3 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 0 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 0 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for ghostrobotics, sorted by severity first and recency.
Encrypted WiFi and SSH credentials were found in the Ghost Robotics Vision 60 v0.27.2 APK. This vulnerability allows an attacker to connect to the robot's WiFi and view all its data, as it runs on ROS 2 without default authentication. In addition, the attacker can connect via SSH and gain full control of the robot, which could cause physical damage to the robot itself or its environment.
Ghost Robotics Vision 60 v0.27.2 includes, among its physical interfaces, three RJ45 connectors and a USB Type-C port. The vulnerability is due to the lack of authentication mechanisms when establishing connections through these ports. Specifically, with regard to network connectivity, the robot's internal router automatically assigns IP addresses to any device physically connected to it. An attacker could connect a WiFi access point under their control to gain access to the robot's network without needing the credentials for the deployed network. Once inside, the attacker can monitor all its data, as the robot runs on ROS 2 without authentication by default.
The communication protocol implemented in Ghost Robotics Vision 60 v0.27.2 could allow an attacker to send commands to the robot from an external attack station, impersonating the control station (tablet) and gaining unauthorised full control of the robot. The absence of encryption and authentication mechanisms in the communication protocol allows an attacker to capture legitimate traffic between the robot and the controller, replicate it, and send any valid command to the robot from any attacking computer or device. The communication protocol used in this interface is based on MAVLink, a widely documented protocol, which increases the likelihood of attack. There are two methods for connecting to the robot remotely: Wi-Fi and 4G/LTE.