CVE-2025-2983
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 Legrand SMS PowerView 1.x and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. The manipulation of the argument redirect leads to os command injection. 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 confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in Legrand SMS PowerView 1.x allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands through manipulation of the 'redirect' argument in an unknown functionality. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and the vendor has not responded to early disclosure.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 Legrand SMS PowerView installationLocate the PowerView software or web interface in your environment. Check installed programs or network services for 'PowerView' or 'Legrand SMS' components.Affected if Legrand SMS PowerView version 1.x is installed on the system
-
Determine the installed versionAccess the PowerView administration interface or check program version information. Compare your version against the 1.x branch.Affected if Version is confirmed to be in the 1.x family
-
Verify web management interface exposureCheck if the PowerView web management interface is accessible from the network. Review firewall rules and network ACLs controlling access to the application.Affected if Web interface is network-accessible beyond trusted administrative segments
-
Analyze HTTP logs for redirect parameter abuseExamine HTTP access and application logs for requests containing the 'redirect' parameter with shell metacharacters such as ; | & $ ` or command substitution patterns.Affected if Suspicious 'redirect' parameter patterns with command injection indicators are found in logs
-
Check for unauthorized system command executionReview system logs, process accounting, or command history on the PowerView server for unexpected commands spawned from the application process.Affected if Unexpected commands or suspicious process execution originating from the PowerView service is detected
User is affected if Legrand SMS PowerView 1.x is deployed and its web interface is network-accessible, particularly if log analysis reveals exploitation attempts targeting the 'redirect' parameter
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 strict input validation and sanitization on the 'redirect' parameter, using allowlist validation and avoiding passing user input to system command execution functions. Consider parameterized approaches or safe API alternatives.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,816.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-2983 — 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-2025-2983 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