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:XSummary
CVE-2026-5995 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 23% 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 weakness has been identified in the Totolink A7100RU firmware version 7.4cu.2313_b20191024. The issue resides in the setMiniuiHomeInfoShow function within the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi file of the CGI Handler component. Manipulation of the lan_info argument permits OS command injection, corresponding to CWE-77 and CWE-78, and carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 8.9 reflecting network-accessible attack conditions without required credentials or user interaction.
The flaw can be exploited remotely by unauthenticated attackers who supply crafted input to trigger arbitrary operating system command execution on the device. A public exploit has been released, enabling straightforward reproduction of the attack against exposed units.
EPSS scores remain low and essentially flat at 0.0122 current with a peak of 0.0125, indicating limited observed exploitation interest to date. The vendor site and public disclosure repositories provide the primary references, though no specific mitigation steps or patch details are included in the available information.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21272
Vulnerability Data
A weakness has been identified in Totolink A7100RU 7.4cu.2313_b20191024. Impacted is the function setMiniuiHomeInfoShow of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument lan_info can lead to os command injection. The attack may be…
more
performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.
- 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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
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 coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
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.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.