VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-60697: Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 3.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 89% 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:L

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

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: 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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Nov 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 involves isolating affected D-Link DIR-882 routers from untrusted networks or restricting access to the router's web interface to trusted management networks only.
Implement network-level filtering to block HTTP requests containing suspicious DDNS parameter patterns or unexpected shell metacharacters.
Monitor router logs and network traffic for unusual activity indicative of exploitation attempts.
Engage with D-Link support or official channels to obtain firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available.
If firmware updates are unavailable, consider replacing affected routers with models not susceptible to this vulnerability.
Employ network segmentation to limit the impact of a compromised router on the broader organizational network.
Regularly audit and update router configurations, disabling unnecessary services such as DDNS if not required.
Educate network administrators on the risks of command injection vulnerabilities and the importance of secure router management practices.

Description

A command injection vulnerability exists in the D-Link DIR-882 Router firmware DIR882A1_FW102B02 within the `prog.cgi` and `rc` binaries. The `sub_4438A4` function in `prog.cgi` stores user-supplied DDNS parameters (`ServerAddress` and `Hostname`) in NVRAM via `nvram_safe_set`. These values are later retrieved in the `start_DDNS_ipv4` function of `rc` using `nvram_safe_get` and concatenated into DDNS shell commands executed via `twsystem()` without proper sanitization. Partial string comparison is performed but is insufficient to prevent command injection. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands on the device through specially crafted HTTP requests to the router's web interface.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to network infrastructure security. Compromise of the D-Link DIR-882 routers could allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands, potentially leading to full device takeover. This can result in interception or manipulation of sensitive data traversing the network, disruption of internet connectivity, or use of compromised routers as pivot points for further attacks within corporate networks. The lack of authentication requirement increases the attack surface, allowing remote exploitation from anywhere with network access to the device's web interface. Organizations relying on these routers for critical connectivity or remote access services may face operational disruptions and data breaches. Additionally, compromised routers could be enlisted in botnets or used to launch attacks against other targets, amplifying the threat. The impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability is high, necessitating urgent attention from affected entities.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
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
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (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 20 Nov 2025, 18:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats