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-2026-1548 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 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-2026-1548 is a command injection vulnerability in the Totolink A7000R router running firmware version 4.1cu.4154. The flaw affects the CloudACMunualUpdateUserdata function within the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi script, where manipulation of the 'url' argument enables arbitrary command execution. Associated with CWE-74 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command) and CWE-77 (Command Injection), it 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).
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by an attacker with low privileges, such as an authenticated user, requiring no user interaction. Successful exploitation allows command injection, potentially granting limited access to confidential data, minor integrity disruptions, and low-level availability impacts on the affected device.
Advisories referenced in VulDB entries (ctiid.343232, id.343232) and related submissions document the issue, while GitHub repositories provide detailed proof-of-concept exploits for the RCE via CloudACMunualUpdateUserdata. No specific patches or mitigation steps are detailed in the available references.
Published on January 28, 2026, the exploit has been publicly released and may be actively used against vulnerable Totolink A7000R devices.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4976
Vulnerability Data
A flaw has been found in Totolink A7000R 4.1cu.4154. This impacts the function CloudACMunualUpdateUserdata of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. This manipulation of the argument url causes command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may…
more
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.