CVE-2025-56096
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 · uneditedOS Command Injection vulnerability in Ruijie RG-BCR RG-BCR600W allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted POST request to the restart_modules in file /usr/lib/lua/luci/controller/admin/common.lua.
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 Ruijie RG-BCR600W router's web interface (luci controller). Attackers can execute arbitrary commands via crafted POST requests to the restart_modules endpoint in /usr/lib/lua/luci/controller/admin/common.lua. The lack of input sanitization on this administrative function allows remote code execution.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 the router modelCheck the device label or access the web interface and look for the model number in the header or system information page. The affected model is Ruijie RG-BCR600W.Affected if The device is a Ruijie RG-BCR600W router
-
Locate the vulnerable lua controller fileAccess the router's filesystem via SSH or telnet (if administrative access is enabled) and check for the existence of /usr/lib/lua/luci/controller/admin/common.luaAffected if The file /usr/lib/lua/luci/controller/admin/common.lua exists on the device
-
Verify the restart_modules function existsIf you can access the lua file, search for 'restart_modules' function definition within /usr/lib/lua/luci/controller/admin/common.luaAffected if The restart_modules function is defined in the luci controller
-
Check if the web administrative interface is exposedSend a POST request to the /cgi-bin/luci/admin/common/restart_modules endpoint or attempt to access the luci web interface on port 80 or 443Affected if The luci administrative web interface is accessible from the network
-
Determine if administrative credentials are configuredCheck if administrative access to the router's web interface is enabled or if default credentials are in use by attempting to authenticate to the luci portalAffected if Administrative access to the router's web interface is possible (even with default credentials)
If the device is a Ruijie RG-BCR600W router with the luci web interface accessible and administrative access enabled, the environment is affected by this command injection vulnerability.
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 patch when available; if no patch exists, restrict administrative interface access to trusted networks/IPs and consider network segmentation to mitigate exposure until a fix is released.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-56096 — 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-2025-56096 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