Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-14705 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Sgwbox N3 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.9 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 3% 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-2025-14705 is a command injection vulnerability in Shiguangwu sgwbox N3 version 2.0.25. It affects an unknown function within the SHARESERVER feature, where manipulation of the "params" argument triggers the injection. The issue aligns with CWE-74 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command) and CWE-77 (Command Injection), and it was published on 2025-12-15.
Remote attackers can exploit this vulnerability without authentication or user interaction, requiring only network access and low attack complexity, as indicated by the CVSS 3.1 vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (base score 9.8). Successful exploitation enables arbitrary command execution, potentially leading to high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected system.
VulDB advisories note that the exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized, with references including detailed entries at vuldb.com/?ctiid.336422 and a Notion page on the sgwbox NAS N3 command injection. The vendor was contacted early about the disclosure but provided no response, and no patches or mitigations are detailed in the available references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-203334
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was determined in Shiguangwu sgwbox N3 2.0.25. This affects an unknown function of the component SHARESERVER Feature. This manipulation of the argument params causes command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed…
more
and may be utilized. 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.