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-2025-15191 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dlink Dwr-M920 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 12% 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-2025-15191 is a command injection vulnerability in D-Link DWR-M920 routers, affecting versions up to 1.1.50. The flaw exists in the function sub_4155B4 within the file /boafrm/formLtefotaUpgradeFibocom, where manipulation of the fota_url argument triggers command injection. It is associated with CWEs-74 and CWE-77 and 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).
Remote exploitation is possible by an attacker possessing low privileges (PR:L), requiring network access with low attack complexity and no user interaction. Successful exploitation enables limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, such as executing arbitrary commands within the context of the vulnerable function.
Advisories and references, including GitHub entries at https://github.com/panda666-888/vuls/blob/main/d-link/dwr-m920/formLtefotaUpgradeFibocom.md and its PoC section, along with VulDB pages at https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.338576, https://vuldb.com/?id.338576, and https://vuldb.com/?submit.723554, document the vulnerability and provide a publicly available exploit.
The exploit has been made available to the public, heightening the potential for real-world attacks against unpatched devices.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-205586
Vulnerability Data
A weakness has been identified in D-Link DWR-M920 up to 1.1.50. The affected element is the function sub_4155B4 of the file /boafrm/formLtefotaUpgradeFibocom. This manipulation of the argument fota_url causes command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit…
more
has been made available to the public and could be exploited.
- 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.