CVE-2025-5445
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 Linksys RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000 and RE9000 1.0.013.001/1.0.04.001/1.0.04.002/1.1.05.003/1.2.07.001 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is the function RP_checkFWByBBS of the file /goform/RP_checkFWByBBS. The manipulation of the argument type/ch/ssidhex/security/extch/pwd/mode/ip/nm/gw leads to os command injection. The attack may be launched 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 · high confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in Linksys RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000 and RE9000 range extenders. The RP_checkFWByBBS function in /goform/RP_checkFWByBBS accepts unsanitized user input through multiple parameters (type, ch, ssidhex, security, extch, pwd, mode, ip, nm, gw) that are passed to system shell commands, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands.
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= 1.0.04.002= 1.0.04.001= 1.2.07.001= 1.0.04.001= 1.1.05.003= 1.0.013.001CVSS 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 model and firmware versionAccess the web management interface and navigate to the Status or Administration > Firmware Upgrade page to view the current firmware version. Alternatively, check the device label or documentation.Affected if The device model is RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000, or RE9000 AND the firmware version matches exactly one of the following: 1.0.04.002 (RE9000), 1.0.04.001 (RE6250/RE6350), 1.2.07.001 (RE6300), 1.1.05.003 (RE7000), or 1.0.013.001 (RE6500)
-
Confirm web management interface is enabledAttempt to access the device's web interface by entering the device's IP address in a web browser. The default IP is often 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.1.250 for Linksys extenders.Affected if The web management interface responds to HTTP or HTTPS requests, indicating it is accessible.
-
Verify vulnerable endpoint existenceSend an HTTP GET or POST request to http://[device-ip]/goform/RP_checkFWByBBS. This can be done using curl: curl -s http://192.168.1.1/goform/RP_checkFWByBBSAffected if The endpoint responds (even with an error page or redirect), confirming the vulnerable function exists on the device.
-
Determine web interface exposure to untrusted networksCheck the device's administration settings for Remote Management or Web Management Access options. Verify whether the HTTP/HTTPS ports are reachable from outside the local network.Affected if Remote management is enabled or the device's web interface is accessible from untrusted/outside networks (not just the local LAN).
The environment is affected if the device is a RE6500, RE6250, RE6300, RE6350, RE7000, or RE9000 running the specific firmware versions listed and the web management interface (including the /goform/RP_checkFWByBBS endpoint) is accessible, allowing potential command injection via the identified parameters.
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 dataSince the vendor has not responded to the disclosure and no patch is available, immediate mitigation requires restricting network access to affected devices, disabling any remote management interfaces, and considering replacement of affected hardware if exposure is high. Monitor for indicators of compromise.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-5445 — 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-2025-5445 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