Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-46367

Dell Alienware Command Center 6.0 – 6.10.15.0

Published
13 November 2025
Modified
17 November 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0014 3th percentile
Risk Priority 54 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-46367 is a high-severity Detection of Error Condition Without Action (CWE-390) vulnerability in Dell Alienware Command Center. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Dell Alienware Command Center 6.x (AWCC), versions prior to 6.10.15.0, contain a Detection of Error Condition Without Action vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Arbitrary Code Execution.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-38301Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2024-0159Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2025-46370Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2026-32655Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2025-30100Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2023-28072Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2023-24569Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2023-28070Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2025-43726Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center
CVE-2025-46368Same product: Dell Alienware Command Center

Affected Assets

dell
alienware command center
6.0 — 6.10.15.0

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation will surface code paths that detect errors yet perform no subsequent action.

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.

DE.AE-08 mostly match
prevents

Declaring incidents when criteria are met forces action on detected errors; eliminating the weakness helps but does not define the criteria themselves.

RS.MA-02 mostly match
prevents

Triaging and validating reports compels follow-up on detections; removing the weakness supports but does not replace triage processes.

DE.AE-02 partial match
prevents

Analysis of detected events directly counters ignoring them, but does not guarantee every error condition is covered.

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Monitoring produces detections, yet supplies no requirement to act on them.

PR.PS-04 partial match
prevents

Generating logs enables later action but does not enforce handling of each error condition.

RS.AN-03 partial match
prevents

Root-cause analysis of incidents requires acting on detected anomalies, though it applies after an incident is already declared.

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.

finds

Security testing can uncover missing error handling, but does not ensure the weakness is eliminated in production code.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging captures error conditions but does not guarantee subsequent handling or remediation.

finds

Monitoring activities can detect errors, yet without defined response procedures the weakness persists.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle practices encourage proper error handling, but do not mandate it for every detected condition.

prevents

Secure coding standards typically require explicit error handling, reducing the likelihood of silent failures.

References