Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2025-2727 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in H3C Magic NX30 (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 41% 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-2025-2727 is a critical command injection vulnerability affecting H3C Magic NX30 Pro routers up to version V100R007. The issue resides in an unknown part of the /api/wizard/getNetworkStatus endpoint within the HTTP POST Request Handler component. Successful exploitation allows arbitrary command execution, as classified under CWE-74 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements) and CWE-77 (Command Injection). The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.0.
Exploitation requires adjacent network access (AV:A), low attack complexity (AC:L), and low privileges (PR:L), with no user interaction needed (UI:N). An attacker with local network proximity and minimal authentication can send a crafted HTTP POST request to the vulnerable endpoint, injecting and executing arbitrary operating system commands on the device. This grants high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H).
Advisories recommend upgrading the affected component to a patched version, as noted in the vulnerability description and linked H3C software download portal. Additional details are available via VulDB entries and a public GitHub disclosure containing the exploit.
The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be actively used by attackers.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-8047
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in H3C Magic NX30 Pro up to V100R007. This affects an unknown part of the file /api/wizard/getNetworkStatus of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation leads to command injection. Access…
more
to the local network is required for this attack to succeed. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.
- 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.