CVE-2025-70328
RCE in Totolink X6000R Firmware 9.4.0cu.1498_b20250826
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-70328 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Totolink X6000R Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 24% 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-2025-70328 is an OS command injection vulnerability affecting the TOTOLINK X6000R router running firmware version v9.4.0cu.1498_B20250826. The issue resides in the NTPSyncWithHost handler within the /usr/sbin/shttpd executable, where the host_time parameter is retrieved via sub_40C404 and passed unsanitized to a date -s shell command through CsteSystem. Although the first two tokens of the input are validated, the remainder of the string lacks sanitization, enabling the injection of shell metacharacters to execute arbitrary commands. The vulnerability is associated with CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) and CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code), and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). It was published on 2026-02-23.
Authenticated attackers with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By crafting a malicious host_time parameter, they can inject shell metacharacters beyond the validated tokens, leading to arbitrary shell command execution on the device. Successful exploitation grants high-impact access to confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially allowing full compromise of the router.
Advisories detailing the vulnerability, including potential mitigation guidance, are available in the following references: https://github.com/neighborhood-H/0-DAY/blob/main/Toto-link/X6000R/NTPSyncWihtHost/report.md and https://www.notion.so/TOTOLINK-X6000R-NTPSyncWithHost-2d170566ca7f803a8096c1b31b2ed42f?source=copy_link.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-207622
Vulnerability Data
TOTOLINK X6000R v9.4.0cu.1498_B20250826 contains an OS command injection vulnerability in the NTPSyncWithHost handler of the /usr/sbin/shttpd executable. The host_time parameter is retrieved via sub_40C404 and passed to a date -s shell command through CsteSystem. While the first two tokens of…
more
the input are validated, the remainder of the string is not sanitized, allowing authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shell commands via shell metacharacters.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5V1.3.1
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.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.