CVE-2025-6618
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 TOTOLINK CA300-PoE 6.2c.884. It has been classified as critical. Affected is the function SetWLanApcliSettings of the file wps.so. The manipulation of the argument PIN leads to os command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 in the SetWLanApcliSettings function within wps.so on TOTOLINK CA300-PoE firmware 6.2c.884. The PIN parameter is not sanitized before being passed to a system call, allowing remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary commands via crafted PIN values.
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= 6.2c.884CVSS 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 modelAccess the device web interface or check the device label to confirm it is a Totolink CA300-PoE deviceAffected if The device is not a Totolink CA300-PoE model
-
Verify firmware versionLog into the device admin panel and navigate to the status or system information page, or use the command line to check the firmware version (e.g., cat /proc/version or grep the firmware file)Affected if Firmware version is exactly 6.2c.884
-
Confirm wps.so module existsAccess the device via SSH or UART and check for the presence of the wps.so module file in the filesystem (typically in /lib or /usr/lib)Affected if The wps.so file exists on the device
-
Verify WLAN or mesh feature is enabledCheck the device web interface or configuration to determine if the WLAN/mesh AP client functionality (SetWLanApcliSettings) is enabled or configurableAffected if WLAN or mesh AP client settings are accessible or enabled on the device
-
Check for unauthenticated API accessAttempt to access the SetWLanApcliSettings API endpoint (typically via the web interface or a request to the device IP) without authentication to see if it is exposedAffected if The SetWLanApcliSettings function is reachable without authentication
You are affected if you have a Totolink CA300-PoE device running firmware version 6.2c.884 with the wps.so module present and the WLAN/mesh AP client feature enabled and accessible.
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; until then, disable WLAN/mesh features if unnecessary and restrict network access to the device management interface using firewall rules or network segmentation to minimize attack surface.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6618 — 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-2025-6618 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