Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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-2025-4903 is a medium-severity Unverified Password Change (CWE-620) vulnerability in Dlink Di-7003G Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Account Manipulation (T1098); ranked in the top 48% 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 IA-11 (Re-authentication) and IA-12 (Identity Proofing) — 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.
A critical vulnerability tracked as CVE-2025-4903 exists in the D-Link DI-7003GV2 router on firmware version 24.04.18D1 R(68125). The issue occurs in function sub_41F4F0 of /H5/webgl.asp when handling parameters such as tggl_port, remote_management, http_passwd, and exec_service; improper handling permits an unverified password change and is tracked under CWE-620 and CWE-640.
An unauthenticated attacker can exploit the flaw over the network by submitting a crafted request to the web interface, resulting in an immediate administrative password reset that grants control of the device. The exploit has already been published publicly.
EPSS remains flat at 0.0169 with no material rise after disclosure. Public references include a detailed technical write-up on GitHub, multiple VulDB entries, and the vendor site, though no specific mitigation steps or firmware patches are described in the available information.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28278
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in D-Link DI-7003GV2 24.04.18D1 R(68125). This affects the function sub_41F4F0 of the file /H5/webgl.asp?tggl_port=0&remote_management=0&http_passwd=game&exec_service=admin-restart. The manipulation leads to unverified password change. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit…
more
has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V7.4.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Re-authentication explicitly requires users to prove identity before performing sensitive actions such as password changes.
Identity proofing at appropriate assurance levels ensures forgotten-password recovery cannot succeed without strong verification of the user.
Authenticator management requires identity verification during password distribution and changes, directly stopping unverified password updates.
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.
Credential management practices directly enforce re-authentication for password changes.
Identity proofing is the core control that prevents weak or bypassed recovery mechanisms.
Authentication requirements include verifying identity before allowing credential modifications.
Secure SDLC reduces implementation flaws but is not specific to password-recovery design.
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.
Requires secure management of authentication information, directly addressing the need to verify the original password before allowing a change.
Secure-SDLC practices can embed strong recovery design, yet the control is broader than this single weakness.
Application-security requirements can mandate secure recovery flows, but the control covers many other requirements.
Secure-coding standards can prevent weak recovery implementations, yet the control is wider in scope.
Mandates secure authentication mechanisms, which include verifying existing credentials before permitting password changes.
Identity management processes can incorporate verification steps, but the control itself does not explicitly require password-change verification.