CVE-2025-9303
Memory Safety in Totolink A720R Firmware 4.1.5cu.630_b20250509
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-2025-9303 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Totolink A720R 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 46% 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-2025-9303 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-119, CWE-120) affecting the TOTOLINK A720R router on firmware version 4.1.5cu.630_B20250509. The issue exists in the setParentalRules function of the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi component, where manipulation of the "desc" argument triggers the overflow.
Attackers with low privileges can exploit this remotely over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L), no user interaction required (UI:N), and unchanged scope (S:U), achieving high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H), for an overall CVSS v3.1 score of 8.8. Exploitation enables potential remote code execution on the affected device.
Advisories reference a public proof-of-concept and exploit available on GitHub at repositories under lin-3-start/lin-cve for TOTOLINK A720R, along with VulDB entries detailing the issue (ctiid.320908, id.320908). No specific patches or mitigation steps are outlined in the provided references. The exploit has been publicly released, increasing the risk of active exploitation.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25432
Vulnerability Data
A security flaw has been discovered in TOTOLINK A720R 4.1.5cu.630_B20250509. This issue affects the function setParentalRules of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. Performing manipulation of the argument desc results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The…
more
exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.
- 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.