CVE-2025-9424
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 identified in Ruijie WS7204-A 2017.06.15. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /itbox_pi/branch_import.php?a=branch_list. Such manipulation of the argument province leads to os command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 WS7204-A wireless controller's web interface. The province parameter in /itbox_pi/branch_import.php?a=branch_list lacks proper input sanitization, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary OS commands via the vulnerable parameter.
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= 2017.06.15CVSS 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 the Ruijie wireless controller modelAccess the device's web interface or CLI and confirm the hardware model is WS7204-A. This is typically visible on the login page, in the system status section, or via the CLI command 'show version'.Affected if The device model is Ruijie WS7204-A
-
Check the installed firmware versionIn the web interface, navigate to System > Firmware/Upgrade or System > Management > Version to view the current firmware build date. Alternatively, use CLI command 'show version' to display firmware information.Affected if The firmware version/build date is exactly 2017.06.15
-
Verify the vulnerable web script existsAttempt to access the URL path /itbox_pi/branch_import.php on the device's web server. This can be done by sending an HTTP GET request to http://<device-ip>/itbox_pi/branch_import.phpAffected if The HTTP response returns a valid page or indicates the script exists (not a 404 error)
-
Confirm the branch_list action parameter is reachableAccess the URL with the parameter a=branch_list, for example: http://<device-ip>/itbox_pi/branch_import.php?a=branch_listAffected if The page loads and displays a form or interface related to branch management
A user is affected if they have a Ruijie WS7204-A device running firmware version 2017.06.15 with the web interface accessible and the /itbox_pi/branch_import.php script present.
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 dataUpdate to a patched firmware version if available. If no patch exists, restrict network access to the management interface using firewall rules or VLAN segmentation, and consider disabling the affected functionality until a fix is released.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-9424 — 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-2025-9424 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