CVE-2025-4341
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 D-Link DIR-880L up to 104WWb01. Affected by this vulnerability is the function sub_16570 of the file /htdocs/ssdpcgi of the component Request Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument HTTP_ST/REMOTE_ADDR/REMOTE_PORT/SERVER_ID leads to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
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 confidenceThe D-Link DIR-880L router contains a command injection vulnerability in the /htdocs/ssdpcgi file's sub_16570 function, which processes HTTP request header arguments (HTTP_ST, REMOTE_ADDR, REMOTE_PORT, SERVER_ID) without proper sanitization. An unauthenticated remote attacker can execute arbitrary operating system commands by injecting shell metacharacters into these headers.
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<= 104WWb01CVSS 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 the device modelAccess the router's web interface or check the device label to confirm the model is D-Link DIR-880LAffected if The device is not a D-Link DIR-880L router
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the router's web interface and navigate to the Status or Management page to view the firmware version, or use the command 'cat /proc/version' or 'nvram get firmver' via telnet/SSH if availableAffected if The firmware version is 104WWb01 or lower (any version <= 104WWb01)
-
Verify the SSDP/UPnP service is enabledCheck the router's web interface under Advanced or Network settings for SSDP or UPnP settings, or inspect the running processes via telnet/SSH for ssdp related processesAffected if SSDP or UPnP service is enabled on the router (the vulnerable ssdpcgi handles SSDP requests)
-
Test for the vulnerable endpointSend an HTTP request to http://router-ip/ssdpcgi with a crafted header containing shell metacharacters (for example, HTTP_ST header with ';ls' or '|ls')Affected if The ssdpcgi endpoint is accessible and responds to requests, indicating the vulnerable function is exposed
A user is affected if they have a D-Link DIR-880L router running firmware version 104WWb01 or lower, with SSDP/UPnP enabled, and the ssdpcgi endpoint is accessible from the 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.
dbcve · scopedSince the DIR-880L is end-of-life and no longer supported by D-Link, the recommended remediation is to replace the device with a currently supported model. If immediate replacement is not feasible, network segmentation and firewall rules restricting access to the router's management interface may reduce exposure.
Replace with a currently supported router model (D-Link DIR- XXXX series or similar current-generation device)
- 1. This vulnerability affects D-Link DIR-880L firmware 104WWb01 and below.
- 2. D-Link has stated this product is no longer supported by the maintainer.
- 3. No vendor patch is available for this command injection vulnerability.
- 4. Replace the D-Link DIR-880L with a currently supported router model from D-Link or another vendor.
- 5. If replacement is not immediately possible, consider network segmentation to isolate the affected device.
- 6. Implement firewall rules to restrict access to the device's management interface from untrusted networks.
- 7. Monitor for any unauthorized access or suspicious activity on the affected device.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2025-4341 — 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-2025-4341 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