Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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-2025-15607 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Tp-Link Archer Ax53 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 22% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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-2025-15607 is a command injection vulnerability in the mscd debug functionality of TP-Link Archer AX53 v1 routers. It arises from insufficient input handling, which allows log redirection to arbitrary files and the concatenation of unvalidated file content into shell commands. Published on 2026-03-20, the vulnerability is classified under CWE-77 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Authenticated attackers can exploit this flaw over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By manipulating inputs, they can inject arbitrary commands into shell execution, leading to the execution of malicious commands and potentially full control of the device.
TP-Link provides mitigation via updated firmware for Archer AX53 v1, available at https://www.tp-link.com/en/support/download/archer-ax53/v1/#Firmware, along with additional guidance in their support FAQ at https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/faq/5025/.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-208905
Vulnerability Data
A command injection vulnerability on AX53 v1 occurs in mscd debug functionality due to insufficient input handling, allowing log redirection to arbitrary files and concatenation of unvalidated file content into shell commands, enabling authenticated attackers to inject and execute arbitrary…
more
commands. Successful exploitation may allow execution of malicious commands and ultimately full control of the device.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
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.
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 neutralization that prevent command injection.
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 command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.