Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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-2023-31530 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Motorola Cx2L Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 16% 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, tracked as CVE-2023-31530 and assigned CWE-77, that affects the smartqos_priority_devices parameter. The flaw received a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8, reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, and low required privileges without user interaction, resulting in high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An authenticated attacker with network access can supply crafted input to the affected parameter and execute arbitrary commands on the device, enabling full compromise of the router's configuration and traffic handling.
The two provided references point to the same public GitHub repository containing proof-of-concept material for the issue, but contain no vendor advisory, patch information, or mitigation guidance. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.1187 with no material increase since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-35833
Vulnerability Data
Motorola CX2L Router 1.0.1 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the smartqos_priority_devices parameter.
- 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.