CVE-2024-28026VulnerabilityPublished 21 Nov 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-28026: MC Technologies MC LR Router · OS Command Injection

Affects MC Technologies MC LR RouterSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.2High

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

EPSS: 6.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 93% 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 21 Nov 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 2026-10-26.

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 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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately assess and inventory all MC Technologies MC LR Router devices running version 2.10.5 within the network. 2. Apply vendor patches or firmware updates as soon as they become available; monitor MC Technologies advisories closely. 3. If patches are not yet available, disable or restrict access to the vulnerable web interface I/O configuration functionality, especially the 'out1' parameter processing. 4. Enforce strong authentication mechanisms and rotate credentials regularly to reduce risk of credential compromise. 5. Implement network segmentation to isolate routers from critical internal systems and limit administrative access to trusted hosts only. 6. Employ web application firewalls or intrusion detection systems with custom rules to detect and block suspicious HTTP requests targeting the vulnerable parameters. 7. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on router configurations and access controls. 8. Educate administrators on the risks of command injection and the importance of secure configuration management.

Description

Three OS command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web interface I/O configuration functionality of MC Technologies MC LR Router 2.10.5. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger these vulnerabilities.This vulnerability refers to the authenticated OS Command Injection that occurs through the attacker-controlled `out1` parameter, at offset `0x8efc`. int out_ret = sscanf(current_param->key, "out%u", &io_idx); if (out_ret == 1 && io_idx == 1) { // [4] Similar to `3`, but `out1` instead of `btn1` if (asprintf(&command, "/usr/sbin/vout %s %u vo_manual", current_param->value, 1) > 0) { system(command); return -1; } }

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk, especially for those relying on MC Technologies MC LR Router in industrial, manufacturing, or critical infrastructure environments. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized command execution, enabling attackers to disrupt network operations, intercept or manipulate sensitive data, and potentially launch further attacks within the internal network. The compromise of routers can undermine the security perimeter, leading to broader organizational impacts including data breaches, operational downtime, and reputational damage. Given the router’s role in managing I/O configurations, attackers might also manipulate connected devices or systems, amplifying the impact. The requirement for authentication limits exposure somewhat but does not eliminate risk, as credential theft or insider threats could facilitate exploitation. The absence of known public exploits provides a window for proactive mitigation before widespread attacks occur.

Summary

CVE-2024-28026 is an authenticated OS command injection vulnerability identified in MC Technologies MC LR Router version 2.10.5, specifically within the web interface's I/O configuration functionality. The vulnerability stems from improper neutralization of special elements (CWE-78) in the 'out1' parameter, which is processed by the router's web server. The vulnerable code uses sscanf to parse the parameter key and then constructs a command string using asprintf that includes user-controlled input. This command string is passed directly to the system() call without sanitization, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands. Exploitation requires authentication but no user interaction beyond sending a crafted HTTP request. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 7.2, reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, high privileges required, and no user interaction. The impact includes full compromise of the router’s confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially allowing attackers to manipulate network traffic, disrupt services, or pivot into internal networks. No public exploits are currently known, but the vulnerability is critical due to the nature of command injection and the router’s role in network infrastructure.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 23:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats