VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-52081: Netgear XR300 · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 16:39 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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 impacted component.
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 on 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 15 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 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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation steps include isolating affected Netgear XR300 routers from untrusted networks and disabling remote management interfaces if enabled. Network administrators should monitor network traffic for suspicious POST requests targeting the usb_device.cgi endpoint. Employing network-level filtering or web application firewalls (WAFs) to block or inspect such requests can reduce exposure. Since no official patches are currently available, organizations should engage with Netgear support to obtain firmware updates or advisories. As a longer-term measure, consider replacing vulnerable devices with models that have received security updates or have a stronger security posture. Additionally, implementing network segmentation to limit access to management interfaces and enforcing strict access controls can reduce the attack surface. Regular vulnerability scanning and penetration testing focused on network devices will help detect exploitation attempts and improve overall security hygiene.

Description

In Netgear XR300 V1.0.3.38_10.3.30, a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the HTTPD service through the usb_device.cgi endpoint. The vulnerability occurs when processing POST requests containing the usb_folder parameter.

Impact

For European organizations, the exploitation of this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access or control over affected Netgear XR300 routers. This could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of network traffic passing through these devices, potentially exposing sensitive corporate data or enabling lateral movement within internal networks. Although the vulnerability does not directly impact availability, successful exploitation could destabilize the router, causing network disruptions. Organizations relying on Netgear XR300 routers for critical network infrastructure, especially in small to medium-sized enterprises or branch offices, may face increased risk. The lack of authentication requirement and remote exploitability heighten the threat, as attackers can target exposed devices without prior access. Given the widespread use of Netgear products in Europe, particularly in home offices and small businesses, the vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks or broader campaigns aiming to compromise network perimeter devices.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/lafdrew/IOT/blob/main/Netgear%20XR300/usb_folder%20of%20usb_device.cgi/buffer%20overflow%20in%20usb_folder%20of%20usb_device.cgi.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Jul 2025, 20:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats