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-2025-9575 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.
CVE-2025-9575 is an OS command injection vulnerability affecting the cgiMain function in the /cgi-bin/upload.cgi file on Linksys Wi-Fi range extenders, specifically models 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 arises from manipulation of the 'filename' argument, enabling injection of operating system commands, and is classified under CWE-77 and CWE-78.
The vulnerability is exploitable remotely (AV:N) by attackers possessing low privileges (PR:L) with low complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction required (UI:N), resulting in a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.3 (medium severity) with low impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:L/I:L/A:L). Exploitation allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands on the device.
Advisories and references, including VulDB entries (ctiid.321689, id.321689, submit.634840) and a GitHub repository detailing the issue and proof-of-concept, confirm the exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early regarding disclosure but provided no response, and no patches or official mitigations are mentioned.
The exploit's public availability increases risk for unpatched devices, with no reported real-world exploitation beyond disclosure as of publication on 2025-08-28.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-26141
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was determined 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 issue affects the function cgiMain of the file /cgi-bin/upload.cgi. Executing manipulation of the argument filename can lead to os command injection. The attack may be…
more
performed from a remote location. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. 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.