VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jan 2026Updated 6 Oct 2026

CVE-2025-9290: TP-Link Systems Omada Software Controller · Use of a One-Way Hash with a Predictable Salt

Affects TP-Link Systems Omada Software ControllerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium : upgrade to 6.0.0.24 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0.0.24, 6.0.0.100, 6.0.0.34 +26

CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Software Controller	Affected <6.0.0.24	Fixed in 6.0.0.24
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Cloud Controller	Affected <6.0.0.100	Fixed in 6.0.0.100
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Hardware Controller (OC200, OC300, OC400)	Affected <6.0.0.34	Fixed in 6.0.0.34
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Hardware Controller OC220	Affected <5.15.24	Fixed in 5.15.24
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Gateway (ER605 v2.0)	Affected =0	Fixed in 2.3.2 Build 20251029 Rel.12727
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Gateway (ER7206 v2.0)	Affected =0	Fixed in 2.2.2 Build 20250724 Rel.11109

AI-suggested

Implement strict network segmentation to isolate management and adoption traffic from general user and guest networks, reducing attacker access to adoption communications.
Monitor network traffic for unusual adoption attempts or repeated authentication failures, which may indicate exploitation attempts.
Restrict physical and logical access to network segments where Omada Controllers and devices operate.
Use VPNs or encrypted tunnels for remote management to prevent interception of adoption traffic.
Regularly audit and update device firmware and controller software, and apply patches promptly once available from TP-Link.
Consider deploying network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) tuned to detect anomalies in controller-device communications.
Limit the number of devices authorized for adoption and enforce strong authentication policies for network management interfaces.
Engage with TP-Link support or security advisories to stay informed about patches or workarounds.

Description

An authentication weakness was identified in Omada Controllers, Gateways and Access Points, controller-device adoption due to improper handling of random values. Exploitation requires advanced network positioning and allows an attacker to intercept adoption traffic and forge valid authentication through offline precomputation, potentially exposing sensitive information and compromising confidentiality.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on TP-Link Omada Controllers for network management, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized device adoption and potential exposure of sensitive network management credentials or configurations. This could facilitate further lateral movement or network compromise if attackers gain footholds through forged authentications. Confidentiality breaches could impact compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations, leading to legal and reputational consequences. Organizations with critical infrastructure or large-scale deployments of Omada devices are at higher risk, as attackers could leverage this vulnerability to disrupt or surveil network operations. The requirement for advanced network positioning limits the attack surface to environments where attackers can access the same network segment or intercept traffic, such as poorly segmented networks or compromised internal networks.

CWE-760Use of a One-Way Hash with a Predictable Salt (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product uses a predictable salt as part of the input.
Architecture and Design
Use an adaptive hash function that can be configured to change the amount of computational effort needed to compute the hash, such as the number of iterations ("stretching") or the amount of memory required. Some hash functions perform salting automatically.
Implementation
If a technique that requires extra computational effort can not be implemented, then for each password that is processed, generate a new random salt using a strong random number generator with unpredictable seeds. Add the salt to the plaintext password before hashing it. When storing the hash, also store the salt.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.4.3 (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Jan 2026, 10:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-760

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats