CVE-2025-2212
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 was found in Castlenet CBW383G2N up to 20250301. It has been classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the file /RgSwInfo.asp. The manipulation of the argument Description with the input <img/src/onerror=prompt(8)> leads to cross site scripting. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Other parameters might be affected as well. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 confidenceReflected XSS vulnerability in Castlenet CBW383G2N router web interface (/RgSwInfo.asp). The Description parameter accepts unsanitized input including JavaScript payloads like <img/src/onerror=prompt(8)>, allowing script execution in user browsers. Other parameters may also be vulnerable.
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<= 2025-03-01CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify the router modelLog into the router web interface or check the device label. Confirm the model number is Castlenet CBW383g2n.Affected if The device is not a Castlenet CBW383g2n router.
-
Check the installed firmware versionIn the router web interface, navigate to the status or system information page to view the firmware version. Compare it to the affected range of versions released on or before 2025-03-01.Affected if The firmware version is newer than the 2025-03-01 release or is unknown.
-
Verify the vulnerable page existsAttempt to access the URL path /RgSwInfo.asp on the router web interface using a browser or HTTP client.Affected if The page returns a 404 error or is not accessible.
-
Test for reflected XSS in the Description parameterSend an HTTP request to /RgSwInfo.asp with a benign test string (such as a unique alphanumeric value) in the Description parameter. Inspect the response to see if the same string appears unmodified in the HTML output.Affected if The submitted input is reflected back into the page response without encoding or sanitization.
A user is affected if they are running a Castlenet CBW383g2n router with firmware dated on or before 2025-03-01 and the /RgSwInfo.asp page reflects user-supplied input without encoding.
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 dataImplement input validation and output encoding for all parameters in /RgSwInfo.asp. Apply context-appropriate HTML encoding before reflecting user input back to the browser. Consider disabling JavaScript in the router's web interface or implementing Content Security Policy headers if supported.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-2212 — 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-2025-2212 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