Information ExposureWeakness · CWE-200

CVE-2025-5436

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-06-02
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A vulnerability was found in Multilaser Sirius RE016 MLT1.0. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. The manipulation leads to information disclosure. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. 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 confidence

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi CGI binary of the Multilaser Sirius RE016 router firmware. The issue allows remote attackers to potentially access sensitive information through manipulated requests to this CGI endpoint. The exploit has been publicly disclosed.

MitigationSince the vendor did not respond to the disclosure, apply compensating controls: restrict network access to the device's management interface, disable remote administration if possible, or replace the device with a supported alternative.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify device model
    Access the router admin interface or check the device label to confirm the model is Multilaser Sirius RE016
    Affected if Device model is Multilaser Sirius RE016
  2. Locate the CGI endpoint
    Check if the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi exists on the device by attempting to access it via HTTP or HTTPS from the local network
    Affected if The endpoint responds or is present on the device
  3. Determine if remote access is enabled
    In the router admin interface, check the remote management or remote administration settings to see if access to the CGI binary is allowed from external IPs
    Affected if Remote management is enabled and the CGI endpoint is reachable from outside the local network
  4. Verify firmware version
    In the router admin interface, look for a firmware version or build number in the status or system settings page
    Affected if Firmware version matches the affected version range (if known) or cannot be determined/patched by the vendor
  5. Test endpoint for information disclosure
    Send a crafted HTTP GET or POST request to /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi with minimal or manipulated parameters from the local network to observe if sensitive data is returned
    Affected if The endpoint returns sensitive information such as credentials, configuration data, or system details in response to manipulated requests

The device is affected if it is a Multilaser Sirius RE016 router with the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi endpoint accessible, particularly if remote management is enabled or the firmware cannot be verified as patched.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Since the vendor did not respond to the disclosure, apply compensating controls: restrict network access to the device's management interface, disable remote administration if possible, or replace the device with a supported alternative.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-5436 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-5436 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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