CVE-2023-52040
RCE in Totolink X6000R Firmware 9.4.0cu.852_b20230719
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-2023-52040 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink X6000R Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); ranked in the top 43% 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2023-52040 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the TOTOLINK X6000R wireless router running firmware version v9.4.0cu.852_B20230719. The flaw resides in the sub_41284C function and is tracked under CWE-77, enabling unauthenticated remote attackers to supply crafted input that results in arbitrary operating system command execution. It received a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8, reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction.
An attacker with network access to the device can directly invoke the vulnerable function to execute arbitrary commands. Successful exploitation grants complete control over the router, allowing modification of configuration, interception of traffic, installation of persistent malware, or use of the device as a pivot point into attached networks.
The EPSS score for this CVE remained low immediately after disclosure but rose materially to a peak of 0.0727 on 2025-01-22 before receding to its current value of 0.0010, indicating a period of increased exploitation interest roughly one year after publication. Public references consist of technical write-ups hosted on GitHub that demonstrate the issue but contain no vendor advisory or patch information.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-56719
Vulnerability Data
An issue discovered in TOTOLINK X6000R v9.4.0cu.852_B20230719 allows attackers to run arbitrary commands via the sub_41284C function.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Documented development standards and tools can mandate verified checking of every function return value.
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 enforce proper error-handling and return-value checking during development.
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.