CVE-2025-7192VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-7192: D-Link DIR-645 · Command Injection

Affects D-Link DIR-645Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · end of life, no fix coming : replace or isolate D-Link DIR-645; no fix will be released.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 4.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 90% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: None coming – the product is end of life

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 8 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

No fix will be released: D-Link DIR-645 is end of life. Replace it, or isolate it from untrusted networks until you can.

AI-suggested

Given the absence of vendor patches due to the product being out of support, European organizations should prioritize the following specific mitigation strategies: 1) Inventory and identify all D-Link DIR-645 routers running firmware version 1.05B01 or earlier within their network and remote user environments. 2) Replace affected devices with currently supported routers that receive regular security updates to eliminate the vulnerability. 3) If immediate replacement is not feasible, isolate the vulnerable routers by restricting remote management access, disabling unnecessary services, and implementing strict firewall rules to limit exposure to untrusted networks. 4) Employ network segmentation to minimize the impact of a compromised router, ensuring that critical systems are not directly accessible through the vulnerable device. 5) Monitor network traffic for unusual command execution patterns or signs of compromise related to the ssdpcgi component. 6) Educate users, especially remote workers, about the risks of using unsupported network devices and encourage timely hardware upgrades. 7) Consider deploying intrusion detection or prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures targeting known exploit attempts against this vulnerability. 8) Regularly review and update network device inventories and security policies to prevent reliance on unsupported hardware in the future.

Description

A vulnerability was found in D-Link DIR-645 up to 1.05B01 and classified as critical. This issue affects the function ssdpcgi_main of the file /htdocs/cgibin of the component ssdpcgi. The manipulation leads to command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the presence and deployment of the affected D-Link DIR-645 routers within their infrastructure. Since the device is a consumer-grade or small office/home office (SOHO) router, organizations using these routers in branch offices or home setups could face risks of unauthorized network access or disruption. Exploitation could lead to interception or manipulation of network traffic, loss of network availability, or use of the compromised router as a foothold for lateral movement within the corporate network. The lack of vendor support and patches exacerbates the risk, as organizations cannot rely on official fixes and must consider device replacement or alternative mitigations. Additionally, the medium severity rating suggests that while the impact is not critical, it is significant enough to warrant attention, especially in environments where network integrity and confidentiality are paramount. European organizations with remote or hybrid workforces using these routers at home may also be indirectly affected, as compromised home routers can serve as entry points into corporate VPNs or networks. The public disclosure of exploit code increases the likelihood of opportunistic attacks targeting vulnerable devices, potentially leading to increased incident response costs and operational disruptions.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Jul 2025, 21:54 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats