CVE-2025-6097
Auth Bypass in Utt 750W Firmware ≤ 5.0
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:P/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-2025-6097 is a medium-severity Unverified Password Change (CWE-620) vulnerability in Utt 750W Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Account Manipulation (T1098); ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.
CVE-2025-6097 affects the UTT 进取 750W router up to version 5.0. The flaw resides in the formDefineManagement function within the /goform/setSysAdm endpoint of the Administrator Password Handler component. An unauthenticated remote attacker can supply a manipulated passwd1 argument to perform an unverified password change, which maps to CWE-620 and CWE-640.
Because the vulnerability can be triggered over the network without credentials or user interaction, an attacker who reaches the management interface can alter the administrator password and thereby obtain persistent administrative control of the device. Public proof-of-concept code demonstrating the attack has been released.
The vendor was notified prior to disclosure but has not issued a response or patch. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0104 with no material increase since publication, indicating limited observed exploitation interest to date.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-18351
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in UTT 进取 750W up to 5.0 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is the function formDefineManagement of the file /goform/setSysAdm of the component Administrator Password Handler. The manipulation of the argument passwd1 leads…
more
to unverified password change. The attack may be launched 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
—
—
—
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.