CVE-2015-7255
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedZTE OX-330P, ZXHN H108N, W300V1.0.0S_ZRD_TR1_D68, HG110, GAN9.8T101A-B, MF28G, ZXHN H108N use non-unique X.509 certificates and SSH host keys, which might allow remote attackers to obtain credentials or other sensitive information via a man-in-the-middle attack, passive decryption attack, or impersonating a legitimate device.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceMultiple ZTE router models (OX-330P, ZXHN H108N, W300V, HG110, GAN9.8T101A-B, MF28G) ship with non-unique X.509 certificates and SSH host keys that are identical across devices. This means multiple devices share the same cryptographic identity, defeating the purpose of certificate-based authentication and enabling man-in-the-middle attacks, passive decryption, or device impersonation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the router modelAccess the device administrative interface or check the device label/marketing to determine the exact model number. Confirm it matches one of the affected models: OX-330P, ZXHN H108N, W300V, HG110, GAN9.8T101A-B, or MF28G.Affected if The device model is any of the affected ZTE models listed.
-
Verify firmware version is not patchedCheck the device administrative interface for the firmware version. Since all versions are affected according to the advisory, any version confirms exposure.Affected if Any firmware version is installed on an affected model.
-
Check if SSH service is enabledAttempt to connect to the device on port 22 (SSH) from the local network or via remote management. Use a tool like nmap or ssh to test connectivity: nc -zv <device_ip> 22 or ssh admin@<device_ip>Affected if SSH service is accessible and responds.
-
Extract and compare SSH host keysConnect to the device via SSH and retrieve the host key fingerprint using: ssh-keyscan -t rsa,dsa,ecdsa <device_ip> 2>/dev/null. Repeat on a second device of the same model if available, or compare against publicly documented default key fingerprints for these models.Affected if The SSH host key matches the key from another device of the same model or matches a known default key.
-
Retrieve and inspect X.509 certificatesAccess the device administrative web interface and navigate to the SSL/TLS or certificate settings page. Alternatively, if you have access to the device firmware image, extract and examine certificate files (.pem, .crt, .cer) from the firmware.Affected if The device uses a default certificate that is identical across multiple devices, or the certificate subject/issuer indicates a factory-default identity.
A user is affected if they operate any of the listed ZTE router models and the device uses default SSH host keys or X.509 certificates that are shared with other devices.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataGenerate and deploy unique X.509 certificates and SSH host keys for each device, either through firmware updates from the vendor or by accessing the administrative interface to replace default credentials. Consider disabling unused remote management services and implementing network segmentation for affected devices.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation10.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-7255 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-7255 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data