CVE-2025-5830
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 · uneditedAutel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial DLB_SlaveRegister Heap-based Buffer Overflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial EV chargers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of DLB_SlaveRegister messages. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of the length of user-supplied data prior to copying it to a fixed-length heap-based buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the device. Was ZDI-CAN-26327.
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 confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow in Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial EV chargers. The DLB_SlaveRegister message handler fails to validate input length before copying user-supplied data into a fixed-size heap buffer, allowing network-adjacent unauthenticated attackers to achieve arbitrary code execution in the device context.
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< 1.39.51< 1.56.51< 1.39.51< 1.56.51< 1.39.51< 1.56.51< 1.39.51< 1.56.51< 1.39.51< 1.56.51< 1.39.51< 1.56.51< 1.39.51< 1.56.51< 1.39.51< 1.56.51CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/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 the MaxiCharger modelLocate the device label or access the admin web interface to identify the exact model name (e.g., AC Elite Business C50, AC Pro, AC Ultra, DC Compact Mobile, DC Compact Pedestal, DC Fast, DC Hipower, or DH480)Affected if The model is any of the listed affected products
-
Retrieve the firmware versionAccess the device admin interface or check the device label/sticker for the firmware version numberAffected if The firmware version is below 1.39.51 or below 1.56.51 (note: both version ranges are affected)
-
Confirm DLB feature is in useCheck the device configuration for Dynamic Load Balancing (DLB) settings - look for DLB_SlaveRegister or related DLB configuration in the web interface or configuration filesAffected if DLB is enabled and the device is configured as a DLB slave (the vulnerable code path is in the DLB_SlaveRegister message handler)
-
Assess network accessibilityDetermine if the charger management port (typically ports 80/443 for web UI and charging protocols) is exposed to untrusted networks or the internetAffected if The device is network-adjacent and reachable by unauthenticated attackers from less-trusted networks
The environment is affected if an Autel MaxiCharger model from the affected list is running firmware versions below 1.39.51 or below 1.56.51, has DLB enabled, and is reachable by unauthenticated network attackers.
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 · scoped1.39.511.56.51
Isolate EV chargers on a restricted network segment with firewall rules limiting exposure. Apply vendor firmware updates when available. Monitor threat intelligence for this specific device model.
Upgrade to firmware version 1.56.51 or later (or minimum 1.39.51 for legacy support)
- Identify the specific MaxiCharger model(s) in your environment from the affected product list (AC Elite Business C50, AC Pro, AC Ultra, DC Compact Mobile, DC Compact Pedestal, DC Fast, DC HiPower, DH480)
- Check the current firmware version of each device using the device management interface or administrative console
- For each device running firmware version < 1.39.51 or < 1.56.51, obtain the latest firmware update from Autel Energy official support channels
- Follow Autel's documented firmware upgrade procedure, which typically involves uploading the firmware file through the device's web interface or management system
- After upgrade, verify the firmware version has been successfully updated to 1.39.51 or higher (preferably 1.56.51)
- Confirm the DLB_SlaveRegister functionality is operational post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-5830 — 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-2025-5830 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