Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-15472

RCE in Trendnet Tew-811Dru Firmware 1.0.2.0

Published
07 January 2026
Modified
15 January 2026
CVSS Score v4 7.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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:X
EPSS Score 0.20 97th percentile
Risk Priority 45 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-15472 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Trendnet Tew-811Dru Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (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.

A command injection vulnerability exists in the TRENDnet TEW-811DRU router running firmware version 1.0.2.0. The flaw resides in the setDeviceURL function of the uapply.cgi file within the httpd component and stems from unsanitized handling of the DeviceURL argument, corresponding to CWE-77 and CWE-78. Successful exploitation allows operating-system command execution on the device.

An authenticated remote attacker can trigger the issue over the network without user interaction by supplying a malicious DeviceURL value. The attack yields high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected router, with a CVSS 4.0 score of 7.3. A working exploit has been made public.

No vendor advisory, patch, or mitigation guidance has been issued; the vendor was notified prior to disclosure but did not respond. Public references consist of technical write-ups on Vuldb and a Notion page that document the vulnerability and proof-of-concept.

The associated EPSS score has remained low, moving only from 0.0151 to a peak of 0.0162.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A flaw has been found in TRENDnet TEW-811DRU 1.0.2.0. This affects the function setDeviceURL of the file uapply.cgi of the component httpd . This manipulation of the argument DeviceURL causes os command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The…

more

exploit has been published 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

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.008 Network Device CLI Execution
Adversaries may abuse scripting or built-in command line interpreters (CLI) on network devices to execute malicious command and payloads.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-0638Same product: Trendnet Tew-811Dru
CVE-2025-15471Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2026-5355Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2026-5353Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2026-5351Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2026-5354Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2026-7609Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2026-5352Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2026-7608Same vendor: Trendnet
CVE-2023-0640Same vendor: Trendnet

Affected Assets

trendnet
tew-811dru firmware
1.0.2.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.3
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V1.2.9

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.

Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.

Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.

Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).

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.

prevents

Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.

finds

Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.

prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.

prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.

none

Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.

References