CVE-2025-15357
Command Injection in Dlink Di-7400G\+ Firmware 19.12.25a1
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-2025-15357 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dlink Di-7400G\+ Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 11% 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-2025-15357 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the D-Link DI-7400G+ router on firmware version 19.12.25A1. The flaw resides in an unknown function within the file /msp_info.htm?flag=cmd, where manipulation of the cmd argument enables command injection. It is classified under CWE-74 and CWE-77, with 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).
The vulnerability is remotely exploitable by attackers possessing low privileges, such as authenticated users with basic access. Exploitation requires network connectivity and low attack complexity but no user interaction. Successful attacks can result in limited impacts, including partial disclosure of sensitive information, modification of data, and denial of some services through arbitrary command execution.
Advisories and references, including VulDB entries (ctiid.338743, id.338743, submit.726376) and the D-Link website, provide further details. A proof-of-concept exploit is publicly available on GitHub at xyh4ck/iot_poc/tree/main/D-Link_DI_7400G%2B_Command_Injection, indicating potential for immediate use by threat actors.
The exploit's public disclosure heightens the risk for exposed D-Link DI-7400G+ devices running the vulnerable firmware.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-205857
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in D-Link DI-7400G+ 19.12.25A1. This affects an unknown function of the file /msp_info.htm?flag=cmd. The manipulation of the argument cmd results in command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and…
more
could be used.
- 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.