CVE-2025-9584
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-2025-9584 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 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-2025-9584 is a command injection vulnerability affecting Comfast CF-N1 firmware version 2.6.0. The issue resides in the update_interface_png function within the /usr/bin/webmgnt file, where manipulation of the interface/display_name argument enables command injection. Published on 2025-08-28, it is rated with 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 and CWE-77.
A remote attacker with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity and no user interaction. Successful exploitation allows limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially enabling arbitrary command execution within the context of the affected component.
Advisories and additional details are documented on VulDB (https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.321697, https://vuldb.com/?id.321697, https://vuldb.com/?submit.636131), while a public exploit is available on GitHub (https://github.com/ZZ2266/.github.io/blob/main/COMFAST/N1V2/update_interface_png/readme.md).
The exploit has been made public, heightening the potential for real-world abuse.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28870
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in Comfast CF-N1 2.6.0. Affected by this issue is the function update_interface_png of the file /usr/bin/webmgnt. The manipulation of the argument interface/display_name results in command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been…
more
made public and could 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.