CVE-2026-2537
Command Injection in Comfast Cf-E4 Firmware 2.6.0.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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-2026-2537 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Comfast Cf-E4 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 2% 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-2026-2537 is a command injection vulnerability affecting the Comfast CF-E4 firmware version 2.6.0.1. It impacts an unknown function within the file /cgi-bin/mbox-config?method=SET§ion=ntp_timezone of the HTTP POST Request Handler component. Manipulation of the timestr argument enables command injection, as classified under CWE-74 and CWE-77.
The vulnerability allows remote exploitation over the network with low attack complexity but requires high privileges (PR:H) and no user interaction. Attackers with privileged access can achieve low-level impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CVSS 4.7; CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L), potentially leading to remote code execution.
Advisories from VulDB document the issue, and a public exploit is available on GitHub at https://github.com/cha0yang1/COMFAST/blob/main/RCE.md. The vendor was contacted early for disclosure but provided no response, leaving no official patches or mitigation guidance.
The exploit is publicly available and might be used in attacks, with no further details on real-world exploitation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-6124
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was identified in Comfast CF-E4 2.6.0.1. This impacts an unknown function of the file /cgi-bin/mbox-config?method=SET§ion=ntp_timezone of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. Such manipulation of the argument timestr leads to command injection. The attack may be launched remotely.…
more
The exploit is publicly available and might 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.