CVE-2020-5525
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 · uneditedAterm series (Aterm WF1200C firmware Ver1.2.1 and earlier, Aterm WG1200CR firmware Ver1.2.1 and earlier, Aterm WG2600HS firmware Ver1.3.2 and earlier) allows an authenticated attacker on the same network segment to execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges via management screen.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a command injection vulnerability in the web management interface of Aterm router models WF1200C, WG1200CR, and WG2600HS. An authenticated attacker on the same network segment can execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges through the management screen by injecting malicious commands, likely via unsanitized input fields.
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 data<= 1.3.2<= 1.2.1<= 1.2.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 router modelAccess the router administration panel or check the device label to confirm the exact Aterm model (WF1200C, WG1200CR, or WG2600HS)Affected if The model is one of WF1200C, WG1200CR, or WG2600HS and the firmware version is at or below the affected version for that model
-
Check installed firmware versionLog into the router web management interface and navigate to the firmware version or status page, typically found under Administration, System, or Status settingsAffected if The firmware version is 1.3.2 or lower for WG2600HS, or 1.2.1 or lower for WF1200C/WG1200CR
-
Verify web management interface is enabledCheck the router settings for the HTTP/HTTPS management interface status, usually under Remote Management, Administration, or Network SettingsAffected if The web management interface is accessible (even from LAN only, since the CVE allows attack from the same network segment)
-
Confirm remote management access settingsCheck if remote management or external access to the administration interface is enabled in the router security or access control settingsAffected if Remote management is enabled, which expands the attack surface to outside the local network segment
If the router is an affected model (WF1200C, WG1200CR, or WG2600HS) running firmware at or below the affected version and the web management interface is accessible, the environment is vulnerable to command injection.
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 dataUpdate router firmware to versions beyond Ver1.2.1 for WF1200C/WG1200CR and beyond Ver1.3.2 for WG2600HS. Until patched, restrict management interface access to trusted IPs only and disable remote management if not needed.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5525 — 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-2020-5525 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