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-2025-9244 is a low-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Linksys Re6250 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 6% 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 security vulnerability has been identified in multiple Linksys wireless range extender models including the RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE6500, 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 addStaticRoute function within the /goform/addStaticRoute endpoint, where unsanitized input to the staticRoute_IP_setting, staticRoute_Netmask_setting, staticRoute_Gateway_setting, staticRoute_Metric_setting, and staticRoute_destType_setting parameters enables operating system command injection. The issue is tracked under CWE-77 and CWE-78 and carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 2.1.
An authenticated remote attacker can supply crafted values to the affected parameters and execute arbitrary operating system commands on the device. Because the attack vector is network-accessible and requires only low-privileged credentials, successful exploitation can lead to limited confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts on the extender without user interaction. A public proof-of-concept has already been released.
The vendor was notified prior to disclosure but has not issued a response or patch. Public references, including a detailed technical write-up and VulDB entries, confirm the exploit is available for use, although the associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0158 with no observed increase since publication.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25398
Vulnerability Data
A security vulnerability has been detected in Linksys RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE6500, RE7000 and RE9000 1.0.013.001/1.0.04.001/1.0.04.002/1.1.05.003/1.2.07.001. This vulnerability affects the function addStaticRoute of the file /goform/addStaticRoute. Such manipulation of the argument staticRoute_IP_setting/staticRoute_Netmask_setting/staticRoute_Gateway_setting/staticRoute_Metric_setting/staticRoute_destType_setting leads to os command injection. The attack may…
more
be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly 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.