CVE-2025-10964
Command Injection in Wavlink Wl-Nu516U1 Firmware m16u1_v240425
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-2025-10964 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Wavlink Wl-Nu516U1 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 7% 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-2025-10964 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-74, CWE-77) in the Wavlink NU516U1 device, specifically affecting the sub_401B30 function in the /cgi-bin/firewall.cgi file. The flaw is triggered by manipulation of the remoteManagementEnabled argument, enabling attackers to inject arbitrary commands. Published on 2025-09-25, it carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 6.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L).
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by attackers with low privileges, requiring no user interaction. Successful exploitation allows limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, such as executing injected commands within the context of the affected component.
Advisories from VulDB indicate the vendor was contacted early for disclosure but provided no response, with no patches or mitigations detailed. A proof-of-concept exploit is publicly available via GitHub repositories linked in the references. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-31156
Vulnerability Data
A weakness has been identified in Wavlink NU516U1. Affected by this vulnerability is the function sub_401B30 of the file /cgi-bin/firewall.cgi. This manipulation of the argument remoteManagementEnabled causes command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made…
more
available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- 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.