Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-4341 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dlink Dir-880L Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
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.
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-2025-4341 is a command injection vulnerability in the Request Header Handler component of the D-Link DIR-880L router, specifically within the sub_16570 function of the /htdocs/ssdpcgi file. It affects firmware versions up to 104WWb01 and arises from unsafe handling of the HTTP_ST, REMOTE_ADDR, REMOTE_PORT, and SERVER_ID arguments, classified under CWE-74 and CWE-77. The issue is rated 5.3 under CVSS 4.0 and impacts only devices that are no longer supported by the vendor.
An authenticated remote attacker can supply crafted values in these arguments to inject and execute arbitrary commands on the device. Public exploit code has been released, enabling straightforward remote exploitation without user interaction.
References including the D-Link site and Vuldb entries note that the affected hardware is end-of-life, with no patches or official mitigations provided. Network segmentation and removal of exposed devices from service are the primary defensive options.
The associated EPSS score has remained flat at a low 0.0135 with no material rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-13524
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability classified as critical was found in D-Link DIR-880L up to 104WWb01. Affected by this vulnerability is the function sub_16570 of the file /htdocs/ssdpcgi of the component Request Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument HTTP_ST/REMOTE_ADDR/REMOTE_PORT/SERVER_ID leads to command…
more
injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
- 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.