CVE-2025-1545
Watchguard Fireware 2025.1 – 2025.1.3
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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-2025-1545 is a high-severity aka Blind XPath Injection (CWE-91) vulnerability in Watchguard Fireware. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 39th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-201297
Vulnerability Data
An XPath Injection vulnerability in WatchGuard Fireware OS may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to retrieve sensitive information from the Firebox configuration through an exposed authentication or management web interface. This vulnerability only affects Firebox systems that have at least…
more
one authentication hotspot configured.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops unneutralized XML metacharacters from reaching the parser.
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 directly requires input neutralization and validation that eliminates XML injection flaws.
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.
Security testing catches XML injection during development but does not itself implement the fix.
Logging can record injection attempts for detection but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring can detect exploitation but provides no preventive control over XML handling.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent XML injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for defenses against injection flaws including XML.
Secure architecture principles reduce attack surface but do not prescribe XML-specific controls.