CVE-2025-44868
RCE in Wavlink Wl-Wn530H4 Firmware 20220801
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-44868 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Wavlink Wl-Wn530H4 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 16% 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.
Wavlink WL-WN530H4 firmware dated 20220801 contains a command injection vulnerability in the ping_test function of adm.cgi that is triggered through the pingIp parameter. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2025-44868 and assigned CWE-77, permits unauthenticated remote attackers to supply crafted input that results in execution of arbitrary operating-system commands. It carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction.
An attacker with network reachability to the device can submit a malicious HTTP request to the administrative CGI endpoint and obtain command execution. Successful exploitation yields full control over the router, enabling actions such as configuration changes, traffic interception, persistence installation, or lateral movement within the attached network.
Public references consist of proof-of-concept repositories that demonstrate the injection vector but contain no vendor advisory, firmware update, or mitigation guidance. The EPSS score rose from lower values to a peak of 0.1000 on 2026-04-16 before receding to the current 0.0435, indicating measurable post-disclosure exploitation interest that later subsided.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-13242
Vulnerability Data
Wavlink WL-WN530H4 20220801 was found to contain a command injection vulnerability in the ping_test function of the adm.cgi via the pingIp parameter. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted request.
- 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.