CVE-2026-0641
Command Injection in Totolink Wa300 Firmware 5.2cu.7112_b20190227
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:P/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-2026-0641 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Totolink Wa300 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 17% 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-2026-0641 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the TOTOLINK WA300 router on firmware version 5.2cu.7112_B20190227. The issue resides in the sub_401510 function within the cstecgi.cgi file, where manipulation of the UPLOAD_FILENAME argument enables attackers to inject and execute arbitrary commands.
The vulnerability is exploitable remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required, but it necessitates low privileges (PR:L) such as an authenticated user account. Exploitation yields limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as reflected in its CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L). Attackers can achieve remote code execution via the disclosed proof-of-concept.
Advisories on VulDB (ctiid.339684, id.339684) and a GitHub repository (https://github.com/JackWesleyy/CVE/blob/main/WA300/TOTOLINK_WA300_RCE.md, including PoC at #poc) detail the vulnerability and exploit, but no specific patches or vendor mitigations are referenced in the available information.
The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be used, with associated CWEs CWE-74 and CWE-77 highlighting improper neutralization of special elements in commands.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-0958
Vulnerability Data
A security vulnerability has been detected in TOTOLINK WA300 5.2cu.7112_B20190227. This vulnerability affects the function sub_401510 of the file cstecgi.cgi. The manipulation of the argument UPLOAD_FILENAME leads to command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been…
more
disclosed publicly and may be used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8
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 (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 output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.