CVE-2025-55423
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 command injection vulnerability exists in the upnp_relay() function in multiple ipTIME router models because the controlURL value used to pass port-forwarding information to an upper router is passed to system() without proper validation or sanitization, allowing OS command injection.
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 command injection vulnerability exists in the upnp_relay() function in multiple ipTIME router models. The controlURL value used for port-forwarding information is passed to the system() function without any validation or sanitization, allowing an attacker to inject 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>= 9.90.8, <= 10.02.2>= 9.90.8, <= 10.06.8>= 9.90.8, <= 10.06.8>= 9.90.8, <= 10.06.8>= 9.99.6, <= 10.06.8>= 11.01.2, <= 12.07.6>= 9.90.8, <= 10.06.8>= 9.90.8, <= 10.06.8CVSS 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 your ipTIME router modelLocate the model label on the device or check the web interface (usually at 192.168.0.1) for the exact model name such as N104s R1, N104v, N1e, N1plus, N1plus I, N1v, N2e, or N2eplusAffected if The model is not one of the eight listed affected models (N104s R1, N104v, N1e, N1plus, N1plus I, N1v, N2e, N2eplus)
-
Determine the installed firmware versionAccess the router web interface, navigate to the firmware or system information page, and record the firmware version number displayed (format is typically X.XX.X)Affected if The firmware version falls within any of these ranges: 9.90.8-10.02.2 (N104s R1), 9.90.8-10.06.8 (N104v/N1e/N1plus/N2e/N2eplus), 9.99.6-10.06.8 (N1plus I), or 11.01.2-12.07.6 (N1v)
-
Verify if UPnP is enabledLog into the router web interface and check the UPnP settings (typically under Advanced, NAT, or Port Forwarding settings). Look for an option labeled UPnP or Universal Plug and Play and confirm whether it is turned on or offAffected if UPnP functionality is enabled on the router (the vulnerability exists in the upnp_relay function, so this is the required condition for exploitation)
-
Check UPnP service accessibilityIf you have access to the WAN side, verify whether the UPnP service port (typically 1900/UDP) is exposed to the internet or accessible from external networksAffected if The UPnP service is reachable from the WAN or untrusted networks, increasing exposure to remote attackers
You are affected if you have an ipTIME router from the listed models with firmware in the specified version ranges AND UPnP is enabled on the device.
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 · scopedApply vendor firmware patches when available; until then, disable UPnP functionality on affected routers or restrict network access to the UPnP service to reduce exposure.
Latest available firmware for each model (post-version 10.06.8 for most models, post-12.07.6 for N1v) from ipTIME.com
- 1. Identify your exact ipTIME router model (N104s R1, N104v, N1e, N1plus, N1plus I, N1v, N2e, or N2eplus) from the device label or web interface
- 2. Check current firmware version via the router's web admin panel (typically at 192.168.0.1) under System or Administration settings
- 3. Visit the official ipTIME support page at iptime.com and navigate to the firmware download section for your specific model
- 4. Download the latest firmware version available for your model - firmware releases after the affected version ranges should contain the fix
- 5. In the router web interface, locate the firmware upgrade section (usually under Administration > Firmware Upgrade)
- 6. Upload the new firmware file and wait for the upgrade process to complete (do not power off the router)
- 7. After reboot, verify the new firmware version in the admin panel and confirm the upnp_relay function no longer accepts unsanitized input
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $6,144.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-55423 — 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-2025-55423 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