CVE-2025-10107VulnerabilityPublished 9 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10107: TRENDnet TEW-831DR · Command Injection

Affects TRENDnet TEW-831DRSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 3.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 87% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

Given the lack of an official patch from TRENDnet, European organizations should take immediate practical steps: 1) Disable remote management interfaces on the TEW-831DR routers to prevent external exploitation. 2) Restrict network access to the router's management interface to trusted internal IP addresses only. 3) Change default or weak administrative credentials to strong, unique passwords to reduce the risk of privilege escalation. 4) Monitor network traffic and router logs for unusual command execution or access patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 5) Where possible, replace the affected TEW-831DR devices with alternative routers from vendors with active security support and patching. 6) Implement network segmentation to isolate vulnerable devices from critical systems. 7) Employ intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics to detect command injection attempts targeting the /boafrm/formSysCmd endpoint. 8) Educate IT staff about the vulnerability and ensure incident response plans include steps for handling potential exploitation. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on compensating controls tailored to the specific device and vulnerability context.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in TRENDnet TEW-831DR 1.0 (601.130.1.1410). Impacted is an unknown function of the file /boafrm/formSysCmd. The manipulation of the argument sysHost leads to command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the deployment context of the TRENDnet TEW-831DR routers. In environments where these devices are used as primary network gateways or in segmented network zones, successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the router, potentially leading to network disruption, interception of traffic, or pivoting to internal systems. Although exploitation requires high privileges, if an attacker gains such access through other means (e.g., weak credentials, other vulnerabilities), this command injection could be leveraged to escalate control and compromise network integrity. The impact on confidentiality could include exposure of network configuration and traffic data, while integrity and availability could be affected by malicious command execution causing device malfunction or denial of service. European organizations with remote management enabled on these devices are at higher risk. The absence of a patch and vendor support complicates remediation, increasing the threat to organizations relying on these routers, especially in sectors with critical infrastructure or sensitive data.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Sep 2025, 14:38 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats