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: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-2025-7836 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dlink Dir-816L Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 2.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 8% 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 command injection has been identified in the D-Link DIR-816L router up to firmware version 2.06B01. It resides in the lxmldbc_system function within the /htdocs/cgibin file of the Environment Variable Handler component and is tracked under CWE-74 and CWE-77. The issue permits manipulation of environment variables that results in arbitrary command execution and carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 2.1 reflecting limited impact and low attack complexity.
The flaw can be triggered remotely by an authenticated attacker who supplies crafted input to the affected handler. Successful exploitation yields limited control over the device, allowing execution of injected commands without requiring user interaction. Public exploit code has already been disclosed, although the EPSS score remains flat at 0.0225 with no observed increase since publication.
The affected hardware is explicitly noted as unsupported by the vendor, and the sole reference to D-Link points to the company homepage without any accompanying patch or mitigation guidance. No evidence of in-the-wild exploitation is provided in the available references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21971
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability has been found in D-Link DIR-816L up to 2.06B01 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function lxmldbc_system of the file /htdocs/cgibin of the component Environment Variable Handler. The manipulation leads to command injection. The…
more
attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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 output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.