Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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-2023-26315 is a medium-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Mi Ax9000 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 3% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) 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.
The Xiaomi router AX9000 contains a post-authentication command injection vulnerability tracked as CVE-2023-26315. The flaw stems from missing input filtering and is classified under CWE-78 and CWE-77. It affects the device firmware and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.5 with the vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H.
An attacker who has already obtained administrative credentials can supply crafted input over the network to execute arbitrary commands. Successful exploitation grants root-level access to the router, enabling full control over device configuration and traffic.
Xiaomi has published an advisory that addresses the issue at https://trust.mi.com/zh-CN/misrc/bulletins/advisory?cveId=546. The current EPSS score of 0.6750 has remained flat at its recorded peak, indicating sustained but not newly emerging exploitation interest.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-30136
Vulnerability Data
The Xiaomi router AX9000 has a post-authentication command injection vulnerability. This vulnerability is caused by the lack of input filtering, allowing an attacker to exploit it to obtain root access to the device.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
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.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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 and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
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.