CVE-2026-2194
Command Injection in Dlink Di-7100G C1 Firmware 24.04.18d1
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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-2194 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Dlink Di-7100G C1 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 11% 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-2026-2194 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-74, CWE-77) in the start_proxy_client_email function of D-Link DI-7100G C1 firmware version 24.04.18D1. 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), indicating medium severity with network accessibility, low attack complexity, and low privilege requirements.
Remote attackers who possess low privileges can exploit this flaw by manipulating inputs to the affected function, enabling arbitrary command execution on the device. Successful exploitation could result in limited impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability, such as unauthorized data access, modification, or disruption of device services.
Advisories and details are documented on VulDB (vuldb.com/?ctiid.344897, vuldb.com/?id.344897, vuldb.com/?submit.749804) and a GitHub repository (github.com/glkfc/IoT-Vulnerability/blob/main/D-Link/Dlink_3.md) that includes the published exploit. The D-Link website (dlink.com) may provide further guidance or patches.
The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be actively used in attacks against vulnerable devices.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-6452
Vulnerability Data
A flaw has been found in D-Link DI-7100G C1 24.04.18D1. This affects the function start_proxy_client_email. Executing a manipulation can lead to command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published 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.