CVE-2025-14300
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 · uneditedThe HTTPS service on Tapo C200 v3, v5, C425 v1.2 and C100 v5 exposes a connectAP interface without proper authentication. An unauthenticated attacker on the same local network segment can exploit this to modify the device’s Wi-Fi configuration, resulting in loss of connectivity and denial-of-service (DoS).
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 confidenceThe Tapo C200 V3 IP camera's HTTPS service exposes a connectAP interface without authentication, allowing any unauthenticated attacker on the local network to modify the device's Wi-Fi configuration, resulting in loss of connectivity and denial of service.
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= 1.3.3= 1.3.4= 1.3.5= 1.3.7= 1.3.9= 1.3.11= 1.3.13= 1.3.14= 1.3.15= 1.4.1= 1.4.2= 1.4.4CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 the Tapo C200 device firmware versionAccess the camera through its web interface or mobile app, or check the device settings to view the firmware version informationAffected if The displayed firmware version matches any of: 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.7, 1.3.9, 1.3.11, 1.3.13, 1.3.14, 1.3.15, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, or 1.4.4
-
Confirm the HTTPS service is enabledCheck the camera's network settings or service status to verify that HTTPS access to the device is enabledAffected if HTTPS service is turned on, as the vulnerability exists in the HTTPS service interface
-
Verify the device is accessible on the local networkPing the camera's IP address or attempt to access the HTTPS web interface from a computer on the same networkAffected if The device responds to network requests, meaning an attacker on the local network could reach the vulnerable connectAP endpoint
-
Check for connectAP endpoint exposureFrom a local network client, attempt to access the connectAP interface via the camera's HTTPS URL (for example: https://<camera_ip>/cgi-bin/luci/;stok=/connectAP or similar path, if known from documentation)Affected if The connectAP endpoint responds without requiring authentication, confirming the vulnerability is present
You are affected if your Tapo C200 runs any of the listed firmware versions (1.3.3 through 1.4.4) and has HTTPS service enabled, allowing an unauthenticated attacker on the local network to access the connectAP interface.
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 dataIsolate the device on a restricted network segment to limit exposure to local attackers, and monitor for vendor firmware updates to patch the authentication bypass.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,152.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-14300 — 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-2025-14300 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