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-2023-46424 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink X6000R Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 21% 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 X6000R firmware version v9.4.0cu.652_B20230116 contains a remote command execution vulnerability in the sub_422BD4 function, tracked as CVE-2023-46424 and assigned CWE-77. The flaw carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8, reflecting network-accessible command injection without any authentication or user interaction required.
An unauthenticated attacker can send crafted requests to the affected device and execute arbitrary operating-system commands, resulting in complete control over the router and its connected network traffic.
Public references include a detailed technical write-up on GitHub and links to TOTOLINK firmware downloads, but no explicit patch or mitigation guidance is provided in the available sources. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0505 with no material increase since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-50643
Vulnerability Data
TOTOLINK X6000R v9.4.0cu.652_B20230116 was discovered to contain a remote command execution (RCE) vulnerability via the sub_422BD4 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.