CVE-2025-15192VulnerabilityPublished 29 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-15192: D-Link DWR-M920 · Command Injection

Affects D-Link DWR-M920Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 4.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 90% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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: Low
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
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 29 Dec 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
D-Link DWR-M920	Affected =1.1.0 =1.1.1 =1.1.2 =1.1.3 =1.1.4 =1.1.5 =1.1.6 =1.1.7 =1.1.8 =1.1.9 =1.1.10 =1.1.11 =1.1.12 =1.1.13 =1.1.14 =1.1.15 =1.1.16 =1.1.17 =1.1.18 =1.1.19 =1.1.20 =1.1.21 =1.1.22 =1.1.23 =1.1.24 =1.1.25 =1.1.26 =1.1.27 =1.1.28 =1.1.29 =1.1.30 =1.1.31 =1.1.32 =1.1.33 =1.1.34 =1.1.35 =1.1.36 =1.1.37 =1.1.38 =1.1.39 =1.1.40 =1.1.41 =1.1.42 =1.1.43 =1.1.44 =1.1.45 =1.1.46 =1.1.47 =1.1.48 =1.1.49 =1.1.50	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediately restrict access to the router's management interface by implementing network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted IP addresses only. 2. Disable remote management features if not strictly necessary, especially those accessible from the internet. 3. Monitor network traffic for unusual requests targeting the /boafrm/formLtefotaUpgradeQuectel endpoint or suspicious command injection patterns. 4. Employ intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics to detect command injection attempts. 5. Regularly audit and inventory all D-Link DWR-M920 devices within the organization to ensure awareness of affected assets. 6. Engage with D-Link support or official channels to obtain firmware updates or patches as soon as they become available and prioritize timely deployment. 7. Consider temporary replacement or isolation of vulnerable devices in critical environments until patches are applied. 8. Educate network administrators about the vulnerability and signs of exploitation to enhance detection and response capabilities.

Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in D-Link DWR-M920 up to 1.1.50. The impacted element is the function sub_415328 of the file /boafrm/formLtefotaUpgradeQuectel. Such manipulation of the argument fota_url leads to command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to network security and operational continuity. The DWR-M920 router is used in various enterprise and industrial settings for LTE connectivity, including remote sites and IoT deployments. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands, potentially leading to unauthorized data access, network pivoting, or complete device takeover. This could disrupt business operations, compromise sensitive information, and facilitate further attacks within the network. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the vulnerability increases the likelihood of exploitation, especially in organizations with exposed management interfaces or insufficient network segmentation. Critical infrastructure sectors relying on LTE routers for backup or primary connectivity may face increased risk of service disruption. Additionally, the lack of current patches means organizations must rely on compensating controls, increasing operational complexity and risk exposure.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Dec 2025, 23:39 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats