CVE-2026-2535
Command Injection in Comfast Cf-N1 Firmware 2.6.0.2
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-2026-2535 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Comfast Cf-N1 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 4% 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-2026-2535 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the Comfast CF-N1 V2 router running firmware version 2.6.0.2. The issue resides in the sub_44AB9C function within the /cgi-bin/mbox-config?method=SET§ion=ptest_channel endpoint, where manipulation of the 'channel' argument enables arbitrary command execution. This flaw is classified under CWE-74 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command) and CWE-77 (Command Injection), with 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 attackers who possess low privileges, such as authenticated users on the device. Successful exploitation allows limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially enabling command execution within the context of the affected component. No user interaction is required, and the low attack complexity makes it accessible over the network.
Advisories from VulDB and a public GitHub repository detail the vulnerability, including a proof-of-concept exploit. The vendor was notified early but provided no response or patch, leaving affected devices without official mitigation. Security practitioners should consider network segmentation, disabling the affected endpoint if possible, or upgrading firmware if updates become available.
The exploit has been publicly disclosed and could be actively used in the wild, increasing the risk for exposed Comfast CF-N1 V2 devices.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-6125
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in Comfast CF-N1 V2 2.6.0.2. The impacted element is the function sub_44AB9C of the file /cgi-bin/mbox-config?method=SET§ion=ptest_channel. The manipulation of the argument channel results in command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been…
more
made public and could be used. 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.