CVE-2024-39761
RCE in Wavlink Wl-Wn533A8 Firmware m33a8.v5030.210505
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-39761 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Wavlink Wl-Wn533A8 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 6% 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-2024-39761 is a set of multiple OS command injection vulnerabilities (CWE-77) in the login.cgi set_sys_init() functionality of the Wavlink AC3000 router running firmware version M33A8.V5030.210505. These flaws allow a specially crafted HTTP request to trigger arbitrary code execution, with a specific instance involving command injection via the `restart_week_value` POST parameter. The vulnerability carries a maximum CVSS v3.1 base score of 10.0 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity due to its network accessibility, low complexity, and lack of prerequisites.
An unauthenticated attacker can exploit these vulnerabilities remotely by sending a malicious HTTP request to the affected device, leading to arbitrary code execution with elevated privileges. This grants full control over the router, potentially enabling data theft, further network compromise, or persistent access, as reflected in the high impact metrics for confidentiality, integrity, and availability alongside a changed scope.
Mitigation details and additional technical analysis are available in the Cisco Talos Intelligence advisory at https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2024-2018.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38355
Vulnerability Data
Multiple OS command injection vulnerabilities exist in the login.cgi set_sys_init() functionality of Wavlink AC3000 M33A8.V5030.210505. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary code execution. An attacker can make an unauthenticated HTTP request to trigger these vulnerabilities.A command injection…
more
vulnerability exists within the `restart_week_value` POST parameter.
- 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
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
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.
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.
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.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.