CVE-2025-6620
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 rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function setUpgradeUboot of the file upgrade.so. The manipulation of the argument FileName leads to os command injection. The attack may be launched 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 TOTOLINK CA300-PoE router firmware (v6.2c.884) within the setUpgradeUboot function in upgrade.so. The FileName parameter is not sanitized before being passed to system shell commands, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via crafted input.
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.
-
Confirm device model is TOTOLINK CA300-PoEAccess the router web interface or check device labeling; look for 'CA300-PoE' model identifier in the device info page or physical labelAffected if Device is NOT a TOTOLINK CA300-PoE router - different models are not affected by this specific CVE
-
Verify firmware version is exactly 6.2c.884Log into the router web interface and navigate to System Status or Firmware Information page; locate the firmware version fieldAffected if Firmware version is NOT 6.2c.884 - only this specific version is listed as affected
-
Confirm web management interface is accessibleAttempt to reach the router's web interface via its IP address (typically 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1); verify the login page loadsAffected if Management interface is completely inaccessible from all network segments - the vulnerability cannot be exploited if there is no interface to interact with
-
Check if remote WAN administration is enabledIn the router web interface, navigate to Administration or Remote Management settings; look for options like 'Enable Remote Management' or 'Allow WAN Access'Affected if Remote WAN administration is disabled AND the device is not reachable from untrusted networks - this limits the attack surface though the underlying vulnerability still exists in the firmware
The device is affected if it is a TOTOLINK CA300-PoE router running firmware version 6.2c.884 with its management or upgrade interface accessible to the attacker
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; immediately restrict network access to the device's management interface and disable remote administration if possible. Implement input validation/allowlisting for the FileName parameter in any interim compensating controls.
- 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-2025-6620 — 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-2025-6620 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