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-2025-14225 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dlink Dcs-930L 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.
CVE-2025-14225 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the D-Link DCS-930L camera running firmware version 1.15.04. The flaw exists in an unknown part of the /setSystemAdmin file within the alphapd component, where manipulation of the AdminID argument enables command injection. Published on 2025-12-08, it carries 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) and is linked to CWE-74 and CWE-77.
The vulnerability allows remote exploitation by low-privileged users (PR:L) with low attack complexity and no requirement for user interaction. Attackers can execute arbitrary commands on the device, resulting in limited impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Advisories from VulDB and a public GitHub repository detail the issue, including proof-of-concept exploit code, confirming remote executability and public disclosure. The vulnerability only affects products no longer supported by D-Link, with no patches available; mitigation requires isolating or decommissioning affected devices.
The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized, as noted in recent VulDB entries and the GitHub disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-201702
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was determined in D-Link DCS-930L 1.15.04. This affects an unknown part of the file /setSystemAdmin of the component alphapd. Executing manipulation of the argument AdminID can lead to command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit…
more
has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. 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.