VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jul 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-39202: OS Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 1.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 72% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Jul 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-39202, organizations should first verify if they are using the D-Link DIR-823X router with firmware version 240126 or earlier. Since no official patches are currently available, immediate steps include restricting access to the router's management interfaces to trusted network segments only, preferably via VLAN segmentation or firewall rules that block access to the /goform/set_lan_settings endpoint from untrusted sources. Enforce strong authentication and change default credentials to prevent unauthorized access. Monitor network traffic for unusual requests targeting the dhcpd_startip parameter or the LAN settings endpoint. Employ network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) with updated signatures to detect potential exploitation attempts. Where possible, isolate vulnerable devices from critical network assets to limit lateral movement. Regularly check for firmware updates from D-Link and apply patches promptly once released. Additionally, consider replacing affected devices with models that have no known vulnerabilities or have received timely security updates.

Description

D-Link DIR-823X firmware - 240126 was discovered to contain a remote command execution (RCE) vulnerability via the dhcpd_startip parameter at /goform/set_lan_settings.

Impact

The exploitation of CVE-2024-39202 can lead to severe consequences for organizations using the affected D-Link DIR-823X routers. Successful attacks allow adversaries to execute arbitrary commands remotely, potentially leading to full device compromise. This can result in unauthorized access to network traffic, interception or manipulation of data, disruption of network services, and pivoting to other internal systems. The confidentiality and integrity of sensitive information are at high risk, while availability impact is moderate but still notable due to possible service disruptions. Given the router's role as a network gateway, compromised devices could serve as persistent footholds for attackers, enabling espionage, data exfiltration, or launching further attacks within corporate or home networks. The requirement for low privileges and no user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the threat level. Organizations relying on these routers in critical infrastructure, enterprise, or residential environments face significant operational and security risks.

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

gist.github.com/Swind1er/40c33f1b1549028677cb4e2e5ef69109 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 04:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats