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:XSummary
CVE-2025-5446 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Linksys Re9000 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; 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.
A vulnerability classified as critical exists in multiple Linksys Wi-Fi range extender models including the RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000, and RE9000 running firmware versions 1.0.013.001, 1.0.04.001, 1.0.04.002, 1.1.05.003, or 1.2.07.001. The flaw resides in the RP_checkCredentialsByBBS function within the /goform/RP_checkCredentialsByBBS endpoint and stems from improper handling of the pwd argument, resulting in operating system command injection as indicated by CWE-77 and CWE-78. The issue can be triggered remotely without user interaction.
An authenticated remote attacker can supply a crafted pwd value to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the affected device. Successful exploitation grants the ability to run commands with the privileges of the web interface process, potentially leading to device compromise or further network access. The CVSS 4.0 score of 5.3 reflects limited impact across confidentiality, integrity, and availability vectors under low attack complexity.
Public references include a detailed proof-of-concept disclosure on GitHub along with entries on VulDB, while the vendor was notified prior to publication but provided no response or patch information. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0639 with no observed increase since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-16660
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in Linksys RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000 and RE9000 1.0.013.001/1.0.04.001/1.0.04.002/1.1.05.003/1.2.07.001. It has been classified as critical. This affects the function RP_checkCredentialsByBBS of the file /goform/RP_checkCredentialsByBBS. The manipulation of the argument pwd leads to os command injection.…
more
It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- 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.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
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.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.