CVE-2025-61045
RCE in Totolink X18 Firmware 9.1.0cu.2053_b20230309
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-61045 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink X18 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 27% 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-2025-61045 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-77, CWE-78) affecting the TOTOLINK X18 router running firmware version V9.1.0cu.2053_B20230309. The flaw resides in the setEasyMeshAgentCfg function, where the mac parameter fails to properly sanitize user input, allowing attackers to inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands. With a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (Critical), it enables network-accessible exploitation with low complexity and no authentication or user interaction required.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted request to the affected endpoint over the network. Successful exploitation grants high-impact remote code execution, compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H) on the targeted device, potentially leading to full control over the router, data theft, or use as a pivot for further network attacks.
Mitigation details and proof-of-concept exploitation information are available in the referenced advisory at https://github.com/ilovekeer/IOT/blob/main/TOTOLINK/X18/setEasyMeshAgentCfg/1.md. Security practitioners should check for firmware updates from TOTOLINK and apply network segmentation or firewall rules to block unauthorized access to the affected function until patched.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-32054
Vulnerability Data
TOTOLINK X18 V9.1.0cu.2053_B20230309 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the mac parameter in the setEasyMeshAgentCfg 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.
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.