CWE-404Weakness · CWE-404

CVE-2025-2957

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-03-30
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
70/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A vulnerability was found in TRENDnet TEW-411BRP+ 2.07. It has been classified as problematic. Affected is the function sub_401DB0 of the file /usr/sbin/httpd of the component HTTP Request Handler. The manipulation leads to null pointer dereference. The attack can only be initiated within the local network. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. 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 · moderate confidence

A null pointer dereference vulnerability exists in the HTTP request handler (function sub_401DB0 in /usr/sbin/httpd) of TRENDnet TEW-411BRP+ router firmware 2.07. The vulnerability can be exploited via specially crafted HTTP requests sent from within the local network, causing the HTTP daemon to crash or experience undefined behavior.

MitigationNetwork access to the router's HTTP interface should be restricted to trusted internal hosts only. Given the vendor's non-response and end-of-life status, consider replacing the device with a currently supported model.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify device model
    Log into the router admin interface or check the device label to confirm the model is TRENDnet TEW-411BRP+
    Affected if The device is not a TRENDnet TEW-411BRP+ router
  2. Check firmware version
    Access the router's web admin interface (typically at 192.168.1.1) and navigate to the Status or System section to view the firmware version, or use the router's firmware version check command if accessible via CLI
    Affected if Firmware version is 2.07 exactly (the only version listed as affected)
  3. Verify HTTP service is running
    From within the local network, attempt to access the router's HTTP interface via a web browser at http://192.168.1.1 or the configured router IP address
    Affected if The HTTP service responds to requests, indicating the vulnerable /usr/sbin/httpd daemon is running
  4. Confirm HTTP handler vulnerability
    Send a specially crafted HTTP request to the router's HTTP interface. The vulnerability exists in function sub_401DB0 of the HTTP request handler. While exact request details are not provided, the vulnerability triggers from the local network against the request processing routine
    Affected if The HTTP daemon crashes, becomes unresponsive, or exhibits undefined behavior in response to the crafted request

A user is affected if they own a TRENDnet TEW-411BRP+ router running firmware version 2.07 and the HTTP service is accessible from their local network, as the null pointer dereference in the HTTP request handler will cause a crash or undefined behavior when triggered by a specially crafted HTTP request.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Network access to the router's HTTP interface should be restricted to trusted internal hosts only. Given the vendor's non-response and end-of-life status, consider replacing the device with a currently supported model.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
24.0 hours of engineering $4,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-2957 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-2957 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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