CVE-2025-1392
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been found in D-Link DIR-816 1.01TO and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /cgi-bin/webproc?getpage=html/index.html&var:menu=24gwlan&var:page=24G_basic. The manipulation of the argument SSID leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
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 confidenceA reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the D-Link DIR-816 1.01TO router's web management interface. The SSID parameter in the /cgi-bin/webproc CGI script (specifically when handling the 24G_basic page) does not properly sanitize user input, allowing remote attackers to inject malicious JavaScript code via the SSID argument.
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= 1.01toCVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Confirm device model is D-Link DIR-816Access the router web interface (typically at 192.168.0.1) and navigate to Status or Device Info page to verify the model number displays as DIR-816. Alternatively, check the physical device label on the router chassis.Affected if The device model is not D-Link DIR-816, then this specific CVE does not apply.
-
Check firmware version is 1.01TOIn the router web interface, go to Status or System Settings and locate the Firmware Version field. Verify it displays exactly 1.01TO (or 1.01to). Some interfaces show this under Maintenance > Firmware Upgrade or Status > Device Information.Affected if The firmware version is anything other than 1.01TO, the specific vulnerability version is not present.
-
Verify web management interface is accessibleAttempt to reach the router's web interface at its default IP address (commonly 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1) using a web browser. Confirm the login page or management interface loads successfully.Affected if The web management interface is not accessible (disabled or blocked), the attack surface for this XSS is not present.
-
Confirm vulnerable CGI endpoint existsAccess the router web interface and navigate to Wireless Settings (the 24G_basic page typically contains 2.4GHz Wi-Fi SSID configuration). Verify the page loads without errors at /cgi-bin/webproc or through the wireless configuration menu.Affected if The 24G wireless settings page is not accessible or the webproc CGI interface is not present, the specific XSS vector does not exist.
If the device is confirmed to be a D-Link DIR-816 running firmware version 1.01TO with the web management interface accessible and the wireless settings page functional, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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.
dbcve · scopedSince this product is end-of-life and no longer supported by D-Link, the recommended remediation is to replace the affected device with a currently supported model. If immediate replacement is not feasible, network segmentation can limit exposure to the management interface.
- 1. Confirm the device has reached end-of-life (EOL) status as explicitly stated in the vulnerability description
- 2. Since D-Link no longer supports this device, no firmware patch will be released
- 3. Replace the affected D-Link DIR-816 device with a currently supported router model from D-Link or another vendor
- 4. If immediate replacement is not possible, implement network-level mitigations: configure a behind-NAT deployment, disable remote management interfaces exposed to the internet, and consider using a web application firewall (WAF) to filter XSS payloads
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-1392 — 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-2025-1392 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