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-2023-33722 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Edimax Br-6288Acl Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 23% 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.
EDIMAX BR-6288ACL firmware version 1.12 contains an authenticated remote code execution vulnerability in the pppUserName parameter. The flaw is tracked as CVE-2023-33722 with a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8 and is classified under CWE-77, indicating improper neutralization of special elements that enables command injection.
An attacker who has obtained valid credentials can send a crafted request over the network to execute arbitrary commands on the device. Successful exploitation grants the attacker full control over confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected router without requiring user interaction.
The EPSS score for this CVE rose from low values to a peak of 0.0637 before receding to the current level of 0.0322, indicating a temporary increase in exploitation interest after disclosure. No public advisories or patches detailing mitigation steps are described in the supplied references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-37877
Vulnerability Data
EDIMAX BR-6288ACL v1.12 was discovered to contain an authenticated remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability via the pppUserName 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.