CVE-2025-46121VulnerabilityPublished 21 Jul 2025Updated 28 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-46121: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical · fixed in 200.17.7.0.139 : patch CommScope Ruckus Unleashed as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 70% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: CommScope Ruckus Unleashed prior to 200.15.6.212.14
Patch: Available – fixed in 200.17.7.0.139, 200.15.6.212.14

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Jul 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

1. Immediate upgrade of all affected Ruckus Unleashed controllers to versions 200.15.6.212.14 or 200.17.7.0.139 or later, as these versions contain patches addressing this vulnerability. 2. Implement network segmentation to isolate wireless controllers from untrusted networks and restrict access to management interfaces strictly to authorized personnel and systems. 3. Deploy DHCP snooping and MAC address filtering to prevent unauthorized devices from spoofing MAC addresses and injecting malicious hostnames. 4. Monitor network traffic for anomalous DHCP requests and suspicious hostname patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. 5. Apply strict input validation and sanitization on all client-supplied data fields, especially hostnames, to prevent format string injection. 6. Use intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with updated signatures to detect exploitation attempts targeting this vulnerability. 7. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on wireless infrastructure to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively. 8. Maintain an incident response plan that includes procedures for isolating and recovering compromised wireless controllers.

Description

An issue was discovered in CommScope Ruckus Unleashed prior to 200.15.6.212.14 and 200.17.7.0.139, where the functions `stamgr_cfg_adpt_addStaFavourite` and `stamgr_cfg_adpt_addStaIot` pass a client hostname directly to snprintf as the format string. A remote attacker can exploit this flaw either by sending a crafted request to the authenticated endpoint `/admin/_conf.jsp`, or without authentication and without direct network access to the controller by spoofing the MAC address of a favourite station and embedding malicious format specifiers in the DHCP hostname field, resulting in unauthenticated format-string processing and arbitrary code execution on the controller.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a severe risk to network infrastructure security. Compromised Ruckus Unleashed controllers could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code remotely without authentication, potentially leading to full system compromise. This can result in unauthorized access to sensitive network traffic, disruption of wireless services, lateral movement within corporate networks, and deployment of further malware or ransomware. Critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and telecommunications that rely on Ruckus wireless infrastructure could face data breaches, operational downtime, and regulatory penalties under GDPR due to compromised confidentiality and availability. The unauthenticated nature of the exploit increases the attack surface, especially in environments where wireless controllers are exposed or accessible via DHCP. The ability to spoof MAC addresses and inject malicious hostnames remotely further exacerbates the risk, making detection and prevention more challenging.

CWE-134Use of Externally-Controlled Format String (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
Requirements
Choose a language that is not subject to this flaw.
Implementation
Ensure that all format string functions are passed a static string which cannot be controlled by the user, and that the proper number of arguments are always sent to that function as well. If at all possible, use functions that do not support the %n operator in format strings.
Build and Compilation
Run compilers and linkers with high warning levels, since they may detect incorrect usage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Format String Injection (opens in a new tab)
String Format Overflow in syslog() (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Jul 2025, 00:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-134

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats