VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jun 2025Updated 10 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-32458: ON Semiconductor Quantenna Wi-Fi chipset · Argument Injection

Affects ON Semiconductor Quantenna Wi-Fi chipsetSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Jun 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
ON Semiconductor Quantenna Wi-Fi chipset	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement several targeted mitigations: 1) Restrict local access to devices using the Quantenna chipset by enforcing strict network segmentation and access controls, limiting access to trusted personnel and systems only. 2) Monitor and audit local command execution logs on affected devices to detect anomalous or unauthorized command invocations, focusing on the router_command.sh script usage. 3) Apply vendor-recommended best practices for secure implementation of the chipset, including disabling or restricting the vulnerable script where feasible. 4) Employ network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) to identify suspicious lateral movement or command injection attempts within internal networks. 5) Where possible, replace or upgrade hardware to versions or alternatives not affected by this vulnerability. 6) Educate IT and security teams about the vulnerability to ensure rapid response to any signs of exploitation. 7) Implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized physical access to network devices. These measures collectively reduce the risk of exploitation until an official patch or firmware update is released.

Description

The Quantenna Wi-Fi chipset ships with a local control script, router_command.sh (in the get_syslog_from_qtn argument), that is vulnerable to command injection. This is an instance of CWE-88, "Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')," and is estimated as a CVSS 7.7 (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N). This issue affects Quantenna Wi-Fi chipset through version 8.0.0.28 of the latest SDK, and appears to be unpatched at the time of this CVE record's first publishing, though the vendor has released a best practices guide for implementors of this chipset.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to network security infrastructure that incorporates the Quantenna Wi-Fi chipset. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized command execution on network devices, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data transmitted or stored on these devices. This could facilitate lateral movement within corporate networks, data exfiltration, or manipulation of network configurations, potentially disrupting business operations or violating data protection regulations such as GDPR. Since the vulnerability requires local access, it is particularly concerning in environments with less controlled physical or network access, such as branch offices, public-facing Wi-Fi networks, or shared workspaces. The high confidentiality and integrity impact could lead to exposure of sensitive corporate or customer data, undermining trust and incurring regulatory penalties. Additionally, the absence of a patch increases the window of exposure, emphasizing the need for immediate mitigations. The threat is amplified in sectors with critical infrastructure or sensitive data, including finance, healthcare, and government agencies within Europe.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jul 2025, 01:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats