VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-52082: 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 should include disabling remote management features on the Netgear XR300 routers to reduce exposure to external attackers.
Network administrators should implement strict firewall rules to restrict access to the HTTPD service and the usb_device.cgi endpoint to trusted internal IP addresses only.
Monitor network traffic for unusual POST requests targeting the usb_device.cgi endpoint, especially those containing the read_access parameter, to detect potential exploitation attempts.
Where possible, replace or upgrade affected Netgear XR300 devices to newer firmware versions once patches become available from the vendor.
Employ network segmentation to isolate vulnerable devices from critical systems and sensitive data to limit the impact of a potential compromise.
Conduct regular vulnerability scans and penetration tests focusing on network devices to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively.
Educate IT staff on the risks associated with consumer-grade network devices in enterprise environments and enforce policies for approved hardware usage.

Description

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

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends on the deployment of Netgear XR300 routers within their network infrastructure. While primarily a consumer and small office device, some small businesses and branch offices may use this router model. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized control of the router, allowing attackers to intercept, modify, or redirect network traffic, undermining confidentiality and integrity of communications. This could facilitate further attacks such as man-in-the-middle, data exfiltration, or lateral movement within the network. Given the router's role as a network gateway, compromise could also disrupt network operations, although availability impact is rated as none in the CVSS vector. The lack of authentication requirement increases the risk, especially if remote management interfaces are exposed to the internet. European organizations with less mature network segmentation or those relying on this router model for critical connectivity may face elevated risks. However, the medium severity and absence of known exploits suggest the threat is moderate but warrants timely mitigation to prevent potential exploitation.

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/read_access%20of%20usb_device.cgi/buffer%20overflow%20in%20read_access%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