Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-40146 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Peplink Smart Reader Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 6.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 29% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to IA-5 (Authenticator Management) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-44753
Vulnerability Data
A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the /bin/login functionality of Peplink Smart Reader v1.2.0 (in QEMU). A specially crafted command line argument can lead to a limited-shell escape and elevated capabilities. An attacker can authenticate with hard-coded credentials and execute…
more
unblocked default busybox functionality to trigger this vulnerability.
- 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 800-53 r5) AI
Authenticator management requires secure distribution and handling of credentials, structurally discouraging hard-coded values.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Cryptographic key management mandates proper establishment and handling instead of embedding keys in code.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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.
PR.AA-01's credential/key-management processes can reduce the incentive to embed secrets but do not address or detect hard-coded values in source code, so the weakness remains fully possible.
PR.AA-02 addresses human identity proofing and per-person credential issuance at enrollment; it has no bearing on whether developers embed static credentials in software.
PR.DS-01 addresses encryption and integrity of stored data but never touches credential or key management practices, so it neither prevents hard-coded credentials nor removes any of their risk.
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.
Education on secure configuration practices discourages technical staff from embedding or relying on hard-coded credentials in systems and applications.
Secure key-generation, distribution and storage procedures reduce the likelihood that hard-coded or default cryptographic keys will be introduced or left unprotected.
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.