CVE-2026-74233
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:X/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-2026-74233 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 15% 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 SC-12 (Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-67000
Vulnerability Data
Zbtlink WE1326, WE357, WE5926, WE5926-WD, WE826-Q, WE826-T2, WE826-WD, WG108, and WG3526 firmware 19.1101, Zbtlink WE2426-C firmware 19.1112, Zbtlink WE5926-EC_QP firmware 20.0516, Zbtlink WF3526-P firmware 19.051, CTN720-W1, LF-1541, and MT7620N firmware 19.1101, and WRC1 firmware 20.0622 contain an unauthenticated command injection…
more
in the infosrvd service (UDP/9992). A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a crafted UDP packet to execute arbitrary commands as root. The service's authentication uses a hardcoded salt and an all-zero wildcard MAC bypass, rendering it ineffective.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requiring cryptographic keys to be established and managed according to defined requirements prevents developers from embedding static unchangeable keys.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
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 require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
Data-at-rest protection policies require proper key management and therefore discourage hard-coded keys.
Data-in-transit protection similarly depends on non-hard-coded keys for encryption.
Configuration baselines and reviews can prohibit hard-coded keys in deployed artifacts.
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.
Key-management controls that govern generation, rotation and protection of keys make the use of embedded hard-coded cryptographic keys less likely and easier to detect.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.