CVE-2025-9521VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2026Updated 3 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-9521: TP-Link Systems Omada Controller · Insufficiently Protected Credentials

Affects TP-Link Systems Omada ControllerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.1 Low : upgrade to 6.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
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: 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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
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: 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 26 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade TP-Link Systems Omada Controller to 6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Controller	Affected <6.0	Fixed in 6.0

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Enforce strict session management policies, including short session timeouts and detection of anomalous session activity, to reduce the risk of session token compromise. 2) Monitor logs for unusual password change activities or multiple password resets within short timeframes to detect potential exploitation attempts. 3) Restrict access to Omada Controller interfaces to trusted networks and use VPNs or zero-trust network access solutions to limit exposure. 4) Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrative accounts to reduce the risk of session token misuse. 5) Regularly audit user privileges and remove unnecessary high-privilege accounts to minimize the attack surface. 7) Consider network segmentation to isolate management interfaces from general user networks, limiting attacker lateral movement. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on session security, monitoring, and access controls specific to the Omada Controller environment.

Description

Password Confirmation Bypass vulnerability in Omada Controllers, allowing an attacker with a valid session token to bypass secondary verification, and change the user’s password without proper confirmation, leading to weakened account security.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability lies in the potential for unauthorized password changes within the Omada Controller management interface. If an attacker gains access to a valid session token with high privileges—possibly through session hijacking, insider threats, or other means—they can bypass the secondary password confirmation and change user passwords. This could lead to unauthorized administrative access, enabling attackers to manipulate network configurations, disrupt network operations, or establish persistent footholds. While the vulnerability itself does not directly compromise confidentiality or availability, the resulting unauthorized access could facilitate broader attacks. Organizations relying on Omada Controller for managing critical network infrastructure, especially in sectors like telecommunications, finance, and government, may face increased risk of operational disruption or data breaches. The low CVSS score suggests limited direct impact, but the risk escalates if combined with other vulnerabilities or poor session management practices.

CWE-522Insufficiently Protected Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
Architecture and Design
Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
Architecture and Design
Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
Implementation
Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Key Theft (opens in a new tab)
Password Recovery Exploitation (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Modify Existing Service (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 4 Feb 2026, 08:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-522

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats