CVE-2026-1149
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: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-2026-1149 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) 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 15% 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-2026-1149 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the Totolink LR350 router on firmware version 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309. The flaw exists in the setDiagnosisCfg function of the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi file within the POST Request Handler component, where manipulation of the "ip" argument enables command injection. Published on 2026-01-19, it is associated with CWE-74 and CWE-77.
The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L), indicating network accessibility with low complexity and requiring low privileges but no user interaction. An authenticated remote attacker with low privileges can exploit it to achieve limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability via injected commands. A public exploit is available and might be used.
Mitigation details and advisories are documented in references including https://lavender-bicycle-a5a.notion.site/TOTOLINK-LR350-setDiagnosisCfg-2e453a41781f800d9ba9c6da80b55276?source=copy_link, https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.341742, https://vuldb.com/?id.341742, https://vuldb.com/?submit.735695, and the vendor site https://www.totolink.net/.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-3226
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was identified in Totolink LR350 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309. This issue affects the function setDiagnosisCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument ip leads to command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely.…
more
The exploit is publicly available and might 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.