AX10 V1/V1.2/V2/V2.6/V3/V3.6: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
CVE-2025-9961 is a high-severity buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability in AX10 V1/V1.2/V2/V2.6/V3/V3.6 from TP-Link, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.6 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with administrator privileges, without any action from a user. The record lists version 1.2.1 as the first without the flaw, so updating AX10 V1/V1.2/V2/V2.6/V3/V3.6 to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 11.5% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is in the top 3.92% of all scored CVEs.
EPSS places it among the vulnerabilities most likely to be exploited soon.
What to do
- Update AX10 V1/V1.2/V2/V2.6/V3/V3.6 to 1.2.1 or a later version.
- Update AX1500 V1/V1.20/V1.26/V1.60/V1.80/V2.60/V3.6 to 1.3.11 or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| TP-Link | AX10 V1/V1.2/V2/V2.6/V3/V3.6 | before 1.2.1 | 1.2.1 |
| TP-Link | AX1500 V1/V1.20/V1.26/V1.60/V1.80/V2.60/V3.6 | before 1.3.11 | 1.3.11 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- HighAdministrator-level access is required first.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA.
Official description
An authenticated attacker may remotely execute arbitrary code via the CWMP binary on the devices AX10 and AX1500. The exploit can only be conducted via a Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attack. This issue affects AX10 V1/V1.2/V2/V2.6/V3/V3.6: before 1.2.1; AX1500 V1/V1.20/V1.26/V1.60/V1.80/V2.60/V3.6: before 1.3.11.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
More Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities (CWE-120)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Recent Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.0 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.6 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.