CVE-2023-39617
RCE in Totolink X5000R Firmware 9.1.0cu.2089_b20211224 … 9.1.0cu.2350_b20230313
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-39617 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink X5000R Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 30% 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.
TOTOLINK X5000R routers running firmware versions V9.1.0cu.2089_B20211224 and V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the setLanguageCfg function. The flaw is triggered by unsanitized input to the lang parameter and is tracked as CWE-77, resulting in a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8 that reflects network-accessible command injection without authentication or user interaction.
An attacker with network reachability can submit a crafted lang value to the affected endpoint and obtain arbitrary command execution on the device. Successful exploitation grants full control over the router, allowing an adversary to read or modify configuration data, intercept traffic, or pivot into attached networks.
The two referenced disclosures consist of identical Notion pages that describe the issue but supply no vendor advisory, firmware update, or mitigation guidance. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0784 with no observable increase after publication.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-43326
Vulnerability Data
TOTOLINK X5000R_V9.1.0cu.2089_B20211224 and X5000R_V9.1.0cu.2350_B20230313 were discovered to contain a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability via the lang parameter in the setLanguageCfg function.
- 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.