CVE-2025-29635 — D-Link DIR-823X Command Injection Vulnerability

CVE-2025-29635 (D-Link DIR-823X) is in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog since 2026-04-24. D-Link DIR-823X contains a command injection vulnerability that allows an authorized attacker to execute… See the required fix, due date and advisories.

Exploitation status

CVE-2025-29635 is listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, added 2026-04-24. D-Link DIR-823X contains a command injection vulnerability that allows an authorized attacker to execute arbitrary commands on remote devices by sending a POST request to /goform/set_prohibiting via the corresponding function. The impacted product could be end-of-life (EoL) and/or end-of-service (EoS). Users should discontinue product utilization.

Advisory facts

Vendor or project
D-Link
Affected product
DIR-823X
Added to CISA KEV
2026-04-24
US federal remediation due date
2026-05-08
Ransomware association
Unknown
EPSS score
—
Weakness (CWE)
CWE-77

Remediation: the required action

Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Wording published by CISA for this catalog entry. It is the baseline action, not a decision about your environment: whether this exposure matters for you depends on where the affected component runs, what it is exposed to and who owns it.

From advisory to a decision you can defend

A catalog entry tells you a vulnerability is being exploited somewhere. It does not tell you whether it matters in your estate, who owns the fix, or what evidence an auditor will ask for later. That is the work VulnTrek does: it takes findings from the tools you already run, decides which exposure actually matters, routes it to an owner, keeps remediation human-approved and retains the lineage as evidence.

Sourced from public upstream advisories (CISA KEV, ENISA EUVD, vendor PSIRTs) mirrored daily. Informational only — not a remediation decision, not legal advice, and the absence of a record is not evidence of safety.