CVE-2025-4823
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 was found in TOTOLINK A702R, A3002R and A3002RU 3.0.0-B20230809.1615. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function submit-url of the file /boafrm/formReflashClientTbl of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation leads to buffer overflow. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the submit-url function within the HTTP POST Request Handler of TOTOLINK A702R, A3002R, and A3002RU routers (firmware 3.0.0-B20230809.1615). The vulnerability is located in the /boafrm/formReflashClientTbl endpoint and can be exploited remotely to achieve code execution due to improper 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= 3.0.0-b20230809.1615= 3.0.0-b20230809.1615= 3.0.0-b20230809.1615CVSS 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.
-
Identify router modelAccess the router's web interface or check the device label/marketing to confirm the exact model number (A702R, A3002R, or A3002RU)Affected if The router is NOT one of these three models
-
Check installed firmware versionLog into the router web interface and navigate to System Status or Firmware Upgrade page to view the current firmware version, or use the router's command line and run 'cat /proc/version' or check /etc/osreleaseAffected if The firmware version is exactly 3.0.0-B20230809.1615
-
Verify HTTP service accessibilityAttempt to access the router's HTTP (port 80) or HTTPS (port 443) management interface from the network. Use a browser or curl to reach the IP address of the routerAffected if The management interface is reachable from an untrusted network segment
-
Confirm the vulnerable endpoint existsSend a POST request to http://[ROUTER_IP]/boafrm/formReflashClientTbl using curl or similar tool. A response (even an error) indicates the endpoint existsAffected if The endpoint responds (the vulnerable code path is present in the firmware)
You are affected if you run TOTOLINK A702R, A3002R, or A3002RU with firmware version 3.0.0-B20230809.1615 and the router's HTTP management interface is 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 firmware updates immediately; if unavailable, disable remote management interfaces, implement network segmentation, and restrict access to the router's HTTP service.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-4823 — 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-2025-4823 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