VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-50922: Unrestricted File Upload

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.2High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 58% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n/a n/a	Affected <=4.5.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on securing administrative access to GL.iNet devices. This includes enforcing strong, unique passwords for administrative accounts and implementing multi-factor authentication if supported.
Network segmentation should be employed to isolate management interfaces from general user networks and the internet, reducing the risk of token theft.
Monitor network traffic and device logs for unusual file uploads or crontab modifications, which may indicate exploitation attempts.
Restrict access to the device's administrative interface to trusted IP addresses or VPN connections.
Regularly update device firmware as soon as GL.iNet releases patches addressing this vulnerability; maintain close communication with the vendor for updates.
Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to detect anomalous processes or scheduled tasks on network devices.
Educate administrators about phishing and session hijacking risks to prevent AdminToken theft.
If patching is not immediately possible, consider temporary replacement of affected devices with models not vulnerable or alternative vendors.
Conduct penetration testing and vulnerability assessments focusing on router devices to identify potential compromise. These steps go beyond generic advice by emphasizing administrative access protection, network architecture adjustments, and proactive monitoring specific to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

An issue was discovered on GL.iNet devices through 4.5.0. Attackers who are able to steal the AdminToken cookie can execute arbitrary code by uploading a crontab-formatted file to a specific directory and waiting for its execution. This affects A1300 4.4.6, AX1800 4.4.6, AXT1800 4.4.6, MT3000 4.4.6, MT2500 4.4.6, MT6000 4.5.0, MT1300 4.3.7, MT300N-V2 4.3.7, AR750S 4.3.7, AR750 4.3.7, AR300M 4.3.7, and B1300 4.3.7.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability presents a critical risk to network security and operational continuity. GL.iNet devices are commonly used as routers and access points in small to medium enterprises and possibly in branch offices due to their cost-effectiveness and feature set. Successful exploitation could lead to full compromise of the affected device, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands, potentially pivot within the network, intercept or manipulate network traffic, and disrupt services. The compromise of router devices can undermine the confidentiality of sensitive communications, integrity of network configurations, and availability of network connectivity. This is particularly concerning for organizations handling sensitive data under GDPR regulations, as unauthorized access or data interception could lead to compliance violations and financial penalties. Furthermore, the ability to schedule arbitrary tasks via cron could allow persistent backdoors or lateral movement within corporate networks. The requirement to obtain the AdminToken cookie implies that attackers must first breach or phish administrative credentials or session tokens, which may be feasible through social engineering or other vulnerabilities. Given the widespread use of GL.iNet devices in Europe, especially in small offices and remote work environments, the threat could impact a broad range of sectors including finance, healthcare, and government agencies.

CWE-434Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #12OWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Architecture and Design
Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Web Service Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
V12.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/gl-inet/CVE-issues/blob/main/4.0.0/Remote%20code%20execution%20due%20to%20gl_crontabs.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 05:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-434

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats