CVE-2024-7214
Command Injection in Totolink Lr350 Firmware 9.3.5u.6369_b20220309
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:XSummary
CVE-2024-7214 is a medium-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink Lr350 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 13% 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-2024-7214 is a command injection vulnerability classified under CWE-77 in the TOTOLINK LR350 router firmware version 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309. It resides in the setWanCfg function within /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi, where unsanitized input to the hostName argument allows arbitrary command execution.
The flaw can be triggered remotely by an authenticated attacker who supplies a crafted hostName value, resulting in command injection with limited effects on confidentiality, integrity, and availability as reflected in its CVSS 4.0 score of 5.3. Public exploit code has been released, enabling potential unauthorized command execution on affected devices.
References such as the GitHub disclosure and Vuldb entries detail the issue and proof-of-concept, yet the vendor received early notification and provided no response or patch information. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0584 with no material rise since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-48181
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability has been found in TOTOLINK LR350 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function setWanCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. The manipulation of the argument hostName leads to command injection. The attack can be launched…
more
remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier VDB-272785 was assigned to this vulnerability. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- 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.