CVE-2025-9583
Command Injection in Comfast Cf-N1 Firmware 2.6.0
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-2025-9583 is a low-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Comfast Cf-N1 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.
CVE-2025-9583 is a command injection vulnerability in the ping_config function of the /usr/bin/webmgnt file within Comfast CF-N1 version 2.6.0. Published on 2025-08-28, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L) and maps to CWEs-74 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component) and CWE-77 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command).
The vulnerability enables remote exploitation by attackers with low privileges, such as authenticated users, over the network with low attack complexity and no user interaction required. Manipulation of the ping_config function allows command injection, resulting in limited impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Advisories reference a publicly disclosed exploit in a GitHub repository at https://github.com/ZZ2266/.github.io/tree/main/COMFAST/N1V2/ping_config, along with VulDB entries at https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.321696, https://vuldb.com/?id.321696, and https://vuldb.com/?submit.636130, noting that the exploit may be used. No specific patches or mitigation guidance are detailed in the available information.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28869
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability has been found in Comfast CF-N1 2.6.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function ping_config of the file /usr/bin/webmgnt. The manipulation leads to command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed to…
more
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
—
—
—
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.