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-2023-31569 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink X5000R Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 13% 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.
The vulnerability CVE-2023-31569 is a command injection flaw (CWE-77) in the TOTOLINK X5000R router running firmware version V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313. The issue is present in the setWanCfg function responsible for processing WAN configuration parameters.
Remote attackers can exploit the flaw over the network without authentication or user interaction. Successful exploitation allows arbitrary command execution on the device, leading to full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability as reflected in the CVSS 9.8 vector.
Public references consist of the vendor product page and GitHub repositories that disclose technical details and proof-of-concept information for the affected firmware.
The associated EPSS score stands at 0.1093 with no material change from its recorded peak.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-35870
Vulnerability Data
TOTOLINK X5000R V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313 was discovered to contain a command injection via the setWanCfg function.
- 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.