CVE-2025-13799
Command Injection in Adslr B-Qe2W401 Firmware ≤ 250814-r037c
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-2025-13799 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Adslr B-Qe2W401 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 5% 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.
A command injection vulnerability exists in the ADSLR NBR1005GPEV2 firmware version 250814-r037c, specifically in the ap_macfilter_del function of the /send_order.cgi endpoint. The flaw arises from improper handling of the mac argument, which can be manipulated to execute arbitrary commands. The issue is tracked under CWE-74 and CWE-77 and carries a low CVSS 4.0 score of 2.1, reflecting that it requires an authenticated remote attacker.
An authenticated attacker with network access can supply a crafted mac parameter to the affected CGI script and achieve command execution on the device. Public exploit code has been released, enabling potential remote compromise of the router without vendor interaction.
The vendor was notified prior to disclosure but provided no response or patch. Public references consist primarily of vulnerability database entries that document the issue and the submitted proof-of-concept.
EPSS for the CVE rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0141 on 2025-12-11 before receding to the current value of 0.0027, indicating a temporary increase in exploitation interest after public disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-199941
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability has been found in ADSLR NBR1005GPEV2 250814-r037c. This vulnerability affects the function ap_macfilter_del of the file /send_order.cgi. The manipulation of the argument mac leads to command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has…
more
been disclosed to the public and may be used. 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.