VulnerabilityPublished 6 Aug 2024Updated 12 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-39226: Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · 20% EPSS · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 20.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 97% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 6 Aug 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

Restrict access to the s2s API by implementing network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted hosts only.
Monitor network traffic for unusual or malformed requests targeting the s2s API endpoints.
Disable the s2s API if it is not required for your deployment to reduce the attack surface.
Apply firmware updates from GL-iNet promptly once patches addressing this vulnerability are released.
Employ intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics to detect command injection attempts.
Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on router management interfaces.
Maintain an inventory of affected devices and track their firmware versions to prioritize remediation.
Educate network administrators about this vulnerability and the importance of securing router management interfaces.

Description

GL-iNet products AR750/AR750S/AR300M/AR300M16/MT300N-V2/B1300/MT1300/SFT1200/X750 v4.3.11, MT3000/MT2500/AXT1800/AX1800/A1300/X300B v4.5.16, XE300 v4.3.16, E750 v4.3.12, AP1300/S1300 v4.3.13, and XE3000/X3000 v4.4 were discovered to contain a vulnerability can be exploited to manipulate routers by passing malicious shell commands through the s2s API.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-39226 is on the availability of affected GL-iNet routers. Successful exploitation can lead to denial of service conditions, potentially causing network outages or degraded performance. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly compromised, disruption of router functionality can affect business continuity, especially in environments relying on these devices for critical connectivity. Organizations using these routers in enterprise, industrial, or remote access scenarios may face operational interruptions. The lack of authentication requirement and low attack complexity increase the risk of exploitation from adjacent networks, such as local LANs or VPNs. Although no known exploits exist yet, the vulnerability could be leveraged by attackers to disrupt services or as a stepping stone for further attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended 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.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (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/s2s%20interface%20shell%20injection.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 05:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats