Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-31528 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Motorola Cx2L Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); 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.
Motorola CX2L Router version 1.0.1 contains a command injection vulnerability in the staticroute_list parameter, classified under CWE-77. The flaw received a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8, reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, and requirements for authenticated access without user interaction, resulting in high impact across confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An authenticated attacker with network access can supply crafted values to the staticroute_list parameter, enabling arbitrary command execution on the device. Successful exploitation grants the ability to read, modify, or delete data and potentially take full control of the router.
Public references consist of two GitHub repositories that document the issue and provide reproduction details. The associated EPSS score remains flat at 0.1187 with no observed increase since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-35831
Vulnerability Data
Motorola CX2L Router 1.0.1 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the staticroute_list parameter.
- 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 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.