Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-29972 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Zyxel Nas326 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 0.2% 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.
The vulnerability CVE-2024-29972 is a command injection flaw in the remote_help-cgi CGI program present in Zyxel NAS326 firmware versions before V5.21(AAZF.17)C0 and NAS542 firmware versions before V5.21(ABAG.14)C0. Marked as unsupported when assigned, the issue is classified under CWE-78 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8 reflecting network-accessible unauthenticated exploitation with high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the flaw by submitting a crafted HTTP POST request that results in execution of arbitrary operating system commands on the affected NAS devices.
Zyxel’s security advisory for multiple NAS vulnerabilities, along with analysis from Outpost24, directs administrators to apply the fixed firmware releases V5.21(AAZF.17)C0 and V5.21(ABAG.14)C0 on supported models to address the issue.
The associated EPSS score stands at 0.9226 with a recorded peak of 0.9268.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-26946
Vulnerability Data
** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** The command injection vulnerability in the CGI program "remote_help-cgi" in Zyxel NAS326 firmware versions before V5.21(AAZF.17)C0 and NAS542 firmware versions before V5.21(ABAG.14)C0 could allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute some operating system (OS) commands by…
more
sending a crafted HTTP POST request.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.