CVE-2024-0579
Command Injection in Totolink X2000R Firmware 1.0.0-b20221212.1452
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-0579 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Totolink X2000R Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked in the top 18% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-16372
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability classified as critical was found in Totolink X2000R 1.0.0-B20221212.1452. Affected by this vulnerability is the function formMapDelDevice of the file /boafrm/formMapDelDevice. The manipulation of the argument macstr leads to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The…
more
exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
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.
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
A.8.25 mandates a secure SDLC process that includes secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training to reduce injection flaws, but does not itself enforce or guarantee neutralization of special elements at runtime.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (including distrust external input, data validation/sanitization, secure architecture layers, and design reviews against attack patterns) that reach injection when applied to output construction; this stops exploitation for a minority slice (e.g. where principles drive sanitization) but leaves most code-level injection defects untouched without further implementation rigor.
Secure coding standards require proper neutralization of special elements, directly addressing CWE-74.
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-74, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-77, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.