Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2025-7912 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Totolink T6 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 40% 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 critical buffer overflow vulnerability designated CVE-2025-7912 affects the TOTOLINK T6 router running firmware version 4.1.5cu.748_B20211015. The flaw resides in the recvSlaveUpgstatus function of the MQTT service, where improper handling of the argument s permits an out-of-bounds write, classified under CWE-119 and CWE-120. The issue received a CVSS 4.0 score of 7.4 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An authenticated remote attacker can supply a crafted MQTT message to trigger the overflow, potentially achieving arbitrary code execution or denial of service on the device. Public proof-of-concept code has been released, confirming that exploitation requires only low-privileged network access without user interaction.
The associated EPSS score remains low at approximately 0.0136 with negligible movement from its recorded peak, indicating limited observed exploitation interest to date. Available references consist of disclosure entries and a public PoC repository but do not include vendor patch details or official mitigation guidance.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-22043
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in TOTOLINK T6 4.1.5cu.748_B20211015. This issue affects the function recvSlaveUpgstatus of the component MQTT Service. The manipulation of the argument s leads to buffer overflow. The attack may be initiated…
more
remotely. The exploit 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
—
—
—
V17.3.2V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.