CVE-2025-15136
RCE in Trendnet Tew-800Mb Firmware 1.0.1.0
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-15136 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Trendnet Tew-800Mb Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
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-2025-15136 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the TRENDnet TEW-800MB router in version 1.0.1.0. The flaw resides in the do_setWizard_asp function within the /goform/wizardset file of the Management Interface, where manipulation of the WizardConfigured argument triggers the injection. Published on 2025-12-28, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and maps to CWEs-74 and CWE-77.
Attackers with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this remotely over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction (UI:N). Successful exploitation enables arbitrary command execution, resulting in high impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H).
Advisories indicate the vendor was contacted early regarding the disclosure but provided no response. No patches or mitigations are detailed from the vendor, while the exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be used, with references including VulDB entries and a Notion site detailing the issue.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-205509
Vulnerability Data
A security vulnerability has been detected in TRENDnet TEW-800MB 1.0.1.0. Affected is the function do_setWizard_asp of the file /goform/wizardset of the component Management Interface. The manipulation of the argument WizardConfigured leads to command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely.…
more
The exploit has been disclosed publicly 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.