CVE-2025-41269
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 Console WebUI in Waterfall WF-500 TX and RX Hosts in version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the device.
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 in the Console WebUI of Waterfall WF-500 TX and RX Hosts version 7.9.1.0 allows remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands due to improper neutralization of special elements in user input being passed to OS command execution.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 device modelCheck the physical device label or login to the device console and run 'show system info' or 'version' to confirm the model is Waterfall WF-500 TX or WF-500 RXAffected if Device is a Waterfall WF-500 TX or RX security gateway
-
Check firmware versionAccess the device console or WebUI and navigate to System > About or run 'show version' to obtain the installed firmware version stringAffected if Firmware version is 7.9.1.0 or any version prior to 7.9.1.0_r2502171040 (e.g., 7.9.0.x, 7.8.x, etc.)
-
Verify Console WebUI is enabledLog into the device management interface and check under Network Settings or Security Settings for Console WebUI configuration statusAffected if Console WebUI is enabled and accessible
-
Assess WebUI network exposureReview firewall rules or network access lists to determine if the Console WebUI management port (typically HTTPS port 443) is exposed to untrusted or external networksAffected if Console WebUI is reachable from untrusted networks or the internet without IP restriction
You are affected if the device is a Waterfall WF-500 TX or RX running firmware version 7.9.1.0 or earlier, and the Console WebUI is enabled and accessible from your network.
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-supplied patch or firmware update to version 7.9.1.0 R2502171040 or later; until patch is available, restrict network access to the Console WebUI to trusted IPs only.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-41269 — 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-2025-41269 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