Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2022-36553 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Hytec Hwl-2511-Ss Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Hytec Inter HWL-2511-SS firmware versions 1.05 and earlier contain a command injection vulnerability in the /www/cgi-bin/popen.cgi component, tracked as CVE-2022-36553 and assigned CWE-77. The flaw received a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8, reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction, with full impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can supply crafted input to the affected CGI endpoint and execute arbitrary operating-system commands on the device. Successful exploitation grants complete control over the wireless LAN controller, enabling actions such as configuration changes, data exfiltration, or deployment of persistent malware.
The supplied references consist of a public gist containing technical details and vendor product pages; none of the listed URLs describe official patches, firmware updates, or mitigation steps. The associated EPSS score remains elevated, with a current value of 0.9361 and a recorded peak of 0.9370.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2022-39259
Vulnerability Data
Hytec Inter HWL-2511-SS v1.05 and below was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the component /www/cgi-bin/popen.cgi.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI
Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly blocks the crafted input supplied to popen.cgi that enables unauthenticated OS command injection.
Enforces authentication and authorization checks before any request reaches the vulnerable CGI endpoint.
Limits privileges of the web-server or CGI process so that even a successful injection yields minimal device control.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.