CVE-2025-9585
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-2025-9585 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-2025-9585 is a command injection vulnerability in Comfast CF-N1 version 2.6.0. It affects the wifilith_delete_pic_file function within the /usr/bin/webmgnt file, where manipulation of the portal_delete_picname argument enables command injection. The issue is classified under CWE-74 and CWE-77, 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).
The vulnerability is exploitable remotely by attackers possessing low privileges, such as authenticated users. Exploitation requires low complexity and no user interaction, potentially allowing limited impacts: partial disclosure of sensitive information (C:L), limited modification of data or processes (I:L), and limited denial of service (A:L).
VulDB advisories (vuldb.com/?ctiid.321698, vuldb.com/?id.321698, vuldb.com/?submit.636136) and a GitHub repository (github.com/ZZ2266/.github.io/blob/main/COMFAST/N1V2/wifilith_delete_pic_file/readme.md) document the issue. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized, as stated in the CVE description, but no specific patch or mitigation details are provided in the available information.
The vulnerability was published on 2025-08-28, highlighting active public exposure of the exploit.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-26146
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was determined in Comfast CF-N1 2.6.0. This affects the function wifilith_delete_pic_file of the file /usr/bin/webmgnt. This manipulation of the argument portal_delete_picname causes command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been publicly…
more
disclosed and may be utilized.
- 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.