CVE-2025-41266
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 · uneditedNozomi Networks Labs identified a CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') in the Administration WebUI in Waterfall WF-500 TX Host in version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 that allows remote authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the WF-500 TX Host.
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 confidenceOS Command Injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in the Administration WebUI of Waterfall WF-500 TX Host version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040. Remote authenticated attackers can execute arbitrary operating system commands due to improper neutralization of special elements in user input fields within the web administration interface.
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<= 7.9.1.0_r2502171040CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 device modelLocate the Waterfall WF-500 TX Host device or access its management interface and confirm the model is WF-500 TX HostAffected if The device is not a Waterfall WF-500 TX Host
-
Check the firmware versionAccess the device's Administration WebUI or CLI and retrieve the firmware version information. Compare against 7.9.1.0_r2502171040 - versions at or below this are affectedAffected if Firmware version is 7.9.1.0_r2502171040 or lower
-
Verify Administration WebUI accessibilityDetermine if the Administration WebUI is accessible from network locations that are not fully trusted. Check firewall rules, network segmentation, and access control listsAffected if Administration WebUI is exposed to untrusted networks or users
-
Review administrative accountsAudit the list of accounts with administrative access to the WebUI. Check for unauthorized or unexpected accountsAffected if There are unexpected administrative accounts or credentials that may have been compromised
-
Inspect for suspicious command executionReview system logs, audit logs, or any available command history for unexpected or unauthorized OS commands that may have been executed through the WebUIAffected if There are signs of unexpected or unauthorized command execution in logs
You are affected if you have a Waterfall WF-500 TX Host running firmware version 7.9.1.0_r2502171040 or lower, and the Administration WebUI is accessible to remote authenticated attackers.
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 dataApply vendor-provided patch or update to version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 or later. If no patch available, restrict administrative WebUI access to trusted networks/IPs and implement network segmentation to limit exposure.
- Consultation4.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-41266 — 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-2025-41266 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