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-2026-1547 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Totolink A7000R 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-2026-1547 is a command injection vulnerability in the Totolink A7000R router running firmware version 4.1cu.4154. It affects the setUnloadUserData function within the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi script, where the plugin_name argument is improperly handled, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary commands. The issue aligns with CWE-74 (improper neutralization of special elements) and CWE-77 (command injection), earning 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).
Attackers with low privileges, such as authenticated users, can exploit this remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. Successful exploitation enables limited command execution on the device, potentially leading to low-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability compromises, such as data leakage, minor configuration changes, or service disruptions.
Public proof-of-concept exploits are available on GitHub at repositories detailing the RCE via setUnloadUserData, including specific PoC instructions. VulDB advisories (ctiid.343231, id.343231, submit.739713) document the vulnerability, but no vendor patches or specific mitigation steps are detailed in the provided references. Security practitioners should isolate affected devices and monitor for anomalous CGI requests until firmware updates are confirmed.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4846
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was detected in Totolink A7000R 4.1cu.4154. This affects the function setUnloadUserData of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. The manipulation of the argument plugin_name results in command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now public…
more
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.