Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-5850 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Totolink A7100RU (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.9 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 3% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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.
A vulnerability identified as CVE-2026-5850 affects the Totolink A7100RU router running firmware version 7.4cu.2313_b20191024. It resides in the setVpnPassCfg function of the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi file within the CGI Handler component. Manipulation of the pptpPassThru argument enables OS command injection, corresponding to CWE-77 and CWE-78, with a CVSS 4.0 score of 8.9 reflecting network-accessible, low-complexity attack conditions that can fully compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Remote unauthenticated attackers can exploit the flaw over the network to inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands. The attack requires no user interaction or privileges, and a publicly available exploit increases the likelihood of successful remote code execution on affected devices.
Reference URLs include a GitHub repository containing vulnerability details, multiple Vuldb entries, and the vendor site, though no specific mitigation guidance or patch information is described in the available references. The EPSS score rose from a low starting value of 0.0037 to a peak of 0.0125, indicating that exploitation interest emerged after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-20862
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A7100RU 7.4cu.2313_b20191024. This affects the function setVpnPassCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. The manipulation of the argument pptpPassThru leads to os command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible.…
more
The exploit is publicly available and might be used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
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.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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 development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.