Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-24156 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink T8 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 19% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2023-24156 is a command injection vulnerability in the ip parameter of the recvSlaveUpgstatus function within TOTOLINK T8 firmware version 4.1.5cu. The issue, tracked under CWE-77, allows arbitrary commands to be executed when the device processes a crafted MQTT packet.
The flaw is remotely exploitable by unauthenticated attackers over the network without user interaction. With a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8, successful exploitation grants complete control over the affected device, resulting in full impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The EPSS score has remained flat at 0.1638 with no material rise after disclosure. Public references consist of technical proof-of-concept details hosted on GitHub but contain no vendor advisories or patch information.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-28219
Vulnerability Data
A command injection vulnerability in the ip parameter in the function recvSlaveUpgstatus of TOTOLINK T8 V4.1.5cu allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted MQTT packet.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training that reduce command injection defects, but leaves a minority slice (e.g. incomplete implementation of those practices, outsourced development without full assurance, or post-SDLC changes) where the weakness can still arise and be exploitable.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. distrust external input, secure session control, data validation/sanitization, least privilege) and design reviews that can stop command injection from being introduced, but this is only a minority slice of CWE-77 because the weakness can still arise in code that bypasses those principles, in non-reviewed components, or in runtime injection vectors the architecture review does not reach.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-77, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.