CVE-2026-2527
Command Injection in Wavlink Wl-Wn579A3 Firmware ≤ 2021-02-19
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-2026-2527 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Wavlink Wl-Wn579A3 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 6% 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-2026-2527, published on 2026-02-16, is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-74, CWE-77) affecting Wavlink WL-WN579A3 router firmware versions up to 20210219. The flaw resides in an unknown function within the /cgi-bin/login.cgi file, where manipulation of the "key" argument enables command injection.
Attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low attack complexity and low privileges required (PR:L), without needing user interaction. Successful exploitation allows limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:L/I:L/A:L), 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).
Advisories from VulDB and related disclosures note that the exploit has been publicly available, including at https://github.com/MRAdera/IoT-Vuls/blob/main/wavlink/wn579a3/login.md, and may be utilized by attackers. The vendor was contacted early regarding the issue but provided no response, with no patches or official mitigations documented in the available references.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-6134
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was determined in Wavlink WL-WN579A3 up to 20210219. Affected is an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/login.cgi. Executing a manipulation of the argument key can lead to command injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has…
more
been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- 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.