Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-10689 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dlink Dir-645 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 2.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 9% 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.
CVE-2025-10689 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the D-Link DIR-645 router with firmware version 105B01. The flaw exists in the soapcgi_main function of the /soap.cgi file, where manipulation of the "service" argument enables command injection. Published on 2025-09-18, it is associated with CWE-74 and CWE-77, carrying a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L).
The vulnerability allows remote exploitation by authenticated users with low privileges. Attackers can leverage the command injection to achieve limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, such as executing arbitrary commands on the device.
Affected products are no longer supported by the maintainer, with no patches available. An exploit is publicly available and might be used, as detailed in references including https://github.com/scanleale/IOT_sec/blob/main/DIR-645-soapcgi.pdf and VulDB entries at https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.324813, https://vuldb.com/?id.324813, and https://vuldb.com/?submit.653689. The D-Link website at https://www.dlink.com/ provides general product information but no specific mitigation for this issue.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-30198
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was identified in D-Link DIR-645 105B01. This issue affects the function soapcgi_main of the file /soap.cgi. Such manipulation of the argument service leads to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and…
more
might be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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.
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 in development catches injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.