Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-22916 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Edimax Re11S Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 47th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-2025-22916 is a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) affecting RE11S version 1.11. The flaw occurs in the formPPPoESetup function when processing the pppUserName parameter, allowing excessive data to overflow the stack. This critical issue 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), indicating severe potential impact from remote exploitation.
An unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By sending a specially crafted request targeting the pppUserName parameter, the attacker can trigger the stack overflow, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution, denial of service, or full compromise of the affected device, with high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
References include the vendor site at http://re11s.com and https://www.edimax.com/edimax/global/, along with a GitHub proof-of-concept at https://github.com/xyqer1/RE11S_1.11-formPPPoESetup-StackOverflow. No specific mitigation or patch details are detailed in the available information.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-3047
Vulnerability Data
RE11S v1.11 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the pppUserName parameter in the formPPPoESetup function.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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 directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.