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-2025-45984 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in B-Link Bl-Wr9000 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 23% 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.
CVE-2025-45984 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-77) present in multiple LB-LINK/Blink router models, including BL-WR9000 V2.4.9, BL-AC1900 V1.0.2, BL-AC2100_AZ3 V1.0.4, BL-X10_AC8 V1.0.5, BL-LTE300 V1.2.3, BL-F1200_AT1 V1.0.0, BL-X26_AC8 V1.2.8, BLAC450M_AE4 V4.0.0, and BL-X26_DA3 V1.2.7. The flaw resides in the sub_45B238 function and is triggered through the routepwd parameter, allowing unauthenticated attackers to supply crafted input that is passed directly to a system command interpreter.
An attacker with network access can exploit the issue over HTTP without authentication or user interaction, achieving arbitrary command execution on the affected device. Successful exploitation grants full control of the router, enabling actions such as credential theft, traffic interception, persistence, or use of the device as an attack pivot. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8, reflecting its critical severity and ease of remote exploitation.
A public technical write-up and proof-of-concept are available on GitHub, but no vendor advisory or firmware patch addressing the flaw has been referenced in available sources. The associated EPSS score has remained steady at 0.1330 with no material increase observed since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-18265
Vulnerability Data
Blink routers BL-WR9000 V2.4.9, BL-AC1900 V1.0.2, BL-AC2100_AZ3 V1.0.4, BL-X10_AC8 V1.0.5, BL-LTE300 V1.2.3, BL-F1200_AT1 V1.0.0, BL-X26_AC8 V1.2.8, BLAC450M_AE4 V4.0.0 and BL-X26_DA3 V1.2.7 were discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the routepwd parameter in the sub_45B238 function.
- 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.