CVE-2026-25721
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 · uneditedAn OS command injection vulnerability exists in XWEB Pro version 1.12.1 and prior, enabling an authenticated attacker to achieve remote code execution on the system by injecting malicious input into the server username and/or password fields of the restore action in the API V1 route.
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 confidenceThis is an OS command injection vulnerability in XWEB Pro version 1.12.1 and prior. An authenticated attacker can inject malicious OS commands through the server username and/or password fields in the 'restore' action of the API V1 route, achieving remote code execution on the target system.
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<= 1.12.1<= 1.12.1<= 1.12.1CVSS 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 installed firmware versionAccess the device admin interface or check system information page to find the firmware version. On the web UI, this is typically found under System > Info or similar. For CLI access, use the appropriate command to display firmware version.Affected if The displayed firmware version is 1.12.1 or lower for Xweb 300d Pro, Xweb 500d Pro, or Xweb 500b Pro
-
Verify API V1 restore endpoint exposureCheck if the web server exposes the API V1 route. This can be done by attempting to access the /api/v1/restore endpoint via HTTP request or reviewing reverse proxy/web server configuration for route mappings.Affected if The API V1 restore endpoint is accessible and responds to requests
-
Confirm authentication status for APIReview the authentication configuration for the API V1 interface. Check whether the restore endpoint requires valid credentials or if anonymous access is permitted.Affected if API V1 restore endpoint permits requests without valid authentication or uses weak/default credentials
-
Inspect API access logs for restore actionReview server access logs for any POST or PUT requests to /api/v1/restore endpoints, focusing on requests containing suspicious characters in username or password parameters (e.g., semicolons, pipe symbols, command substitution syntax).
A user is affected if they are running Copeland Xweb 300d/500d/500b Pro firmware version 1.12.1 or lower AND have the API V1 restore endpoint accessible, particularly without proper authentication controls.
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 dataImplement strict input validation and sanitization on the username and password fields in the restore API action, using parameterized approaches or safe API calls instead of passing user input directly to system shell commands. Apply principle of least privilege to the account running the web service.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25721 — 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-2026-25721 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