VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jul 2025Updated 7 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-7081: Belkin F9K1122 · OS Command Injection

Affects Belkin F9K1122Source CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · 19% EPSS · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 19.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 97% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jul 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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
GitHubbelkin/F9K1122`pkg:github/belkin/F9K1122`Other threats	Affected =1.00.33	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Since no official patches are available, European organizations should immediately restrict access to the router's management interface by implementing network-level controls such as firewall rules to block WAN-side access to the router's web interface (typically port 80/443). Disabling remote management features on the router is critical to reduce exposure. Network segmentation should be enforced to isolate the router management network from critical business systems. Monitoring network traffic for unusual patterns or command injection attempts targeting the router's WAN interface can provide early detection. Organizations should consider replacing affected devices with models from vendors with active security support or deploying additional security layers such as intrusion prevention systems (IPS) that can detect and block command injection payloads. Regularly auditing router firmware versions and configurations is essential. If possible, use VPNs or secure management channels to access router interfaces rather than exposing them directly to the internet. Finally, organizations should stay alert for vendor updates or community patches and apply them promptly once available.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in Belkin F9K1122 1.00.33 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function formSetWanStatic of the file /goform/formSetWanStatic of the component webs. The manipulation of the argument m_wan_ipaddr/m_wan_netmask/m_wan_gateway/m_wan_staticdns1/m_wan_staticdns2 is directly passed by the attacker/so we can control the m_wan_ipaddr/m_wan_netmask/m_wan_gateway/m_wan_staticdns1/m_wan_staticdns2 leads to os command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations using the Belkin F9K1122 router, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized remote control over network gateway devices. Compromise of such routers can lead to interception or manipulation of network traffic, disruption of internet connectivity, and potential lateral movement into internal networks. This is particularly concerning for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and home office environments where such consumer-grade routers are commonly deployed without stringent security monitoring. The ability to execute arbitrary OS commands remotely could allow attackers to install persistent malware, create backdoors, or launch denial-of-service attacks against critical infrastructure. Given the lack of vendor response and patches, organizations face an elevated risk window. Additionally, the WAN interface exposure means that attackers do not need to be inside the local network, increasing the attack surface. The impact extends to confidentiality, integrity, and availability of network services, potentially affecting business operations and data security.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2025, 14:09 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats