CVE-2025-4139
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 classified as critical was found in Netgear EX6120 1.0.0.68. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fwAcosCgiInbound. The manipulation of the argument host leads to buffer overflow. The attack can be launched remotely. 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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in Netgear EX6120 router firmware version 1.0.0.68, specifically in the fwAcosCgiInbound function via the 'host' argument. This allows remote attackers to potentially execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service due to insufficient bounds checking.
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= 1.0.0.68CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm device model is Netgear EX6120Log into the router web interface or check the device label/marketing materials. The model number is typically displayed on the administration page or physical device.Affected if Device model is Netgear EX6120 and firmware version is 1.0.0.68
-
Identify installed firmware versionAccess the router administration panel (typically at 192.168.1.1 or routerlogin.net), navigate to Administration > Firmware Update or similar section, and record the exact firmware version displayed.Affected if Firmware version displayed equals 1.0.0.68 exactly
-
Determine if web management interface is accessibleAttempt to access the router web interface over HTTP/HTTPS from both local network and, if configured, external IP addresses. Note whether the login page responds.Affected if Web interface is accessible on the expected IP or hostname
-
Check if remote management is enabledIn the router web interface, navigate to Advanced > Remote Management or Administration > Access Control. Look for settings that enable access to the management interface from outside the local network (often labeled 'Remote Management', 'External Access', or 'Allow access from outside').Affected if Remote management is enabled, allowing access to the web interface from external IP addresses
A user is affected if they own a Netgear EX6120 router running firmware version 1.0.0.68 with the web management interface accessible, especially if remote management is enabled.
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 dataNo vendor patch is available due to non-responsive vendor. Implement network segmentation to isolate the device, disable remote management interfaces if not needed, and consider replacing the device with a supported model from a vendor that provides security updates.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-4139 — 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-2025-4139 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