CVE-2026-1742VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026Updated 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-1742: EFM ipTIME A8004T · Unrestricted Upload

Affects EFM ipTIME A8004TSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Feb 2026
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
EFMipTIME A8004T	Affected =14.18.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the lack of an official patch from the vendor, organizations should implement several specific mitigations: 1) Restrict administrative access to the router’s management interface and VPN services to trusted IP addresses and networks only, minimizing exposure to potential attackers. 2) Enforce strong authentication mechanisms and regularly update credentials to reduce the risk of privilege escalation that could enable exploitation. 3) Monitor network traffic and device logs for unusual file upload activity or unauthorized access attempts to detect exploitation early. 4) Where possible, isolate the affected router from critical network segments to limit the impact of a compromise. 5) Consider deploying network-based intrusion detection or prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures targeting known exploit patterns for this vulnerability. 6) Evaluate alternative VPN solutions or router models with active vendor support and timely security updates. 7) If feasible, disable the vulnerable VPN service or the affected CGI endpoint until a patch is available. 8) Maintain regular backups of router configurations to enable rapid recovery in case of compromise. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, monitoring, and network segmentation specific to this vulnerability’s exploitation vector.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in EFM ipTIME A8004T 14.18.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function commit_vpncli_file_upload of the file /cgi/timepro.cgi of the component VPN Service. Such manipulation leads to unrestricted upload. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-1742 on organizations using the EFM ipTIME A8004T router can be significant, particularly in environments relying on VPN services for secure remote access. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to upload malicious files, potentially leading to unauthorized code execution, disruption of VPN connectivity, or persistent compromise of the device. This could result in loss of confidentiality of network traffic, integrity breaches through manipulation of device configurations or firmware, and availability issues if the VPN service or router functionality is disrupted. Since the vulnerability requires high privileges, the initial compromise vector might involve credential theft or exploitation of other vulnerabilities, but once achieved, the attacker gains a powerful foothold. Organizations could face data breaches, network infiltration, or lateral movement facilitated by compromised VPN infrastructure. The absence of vendor patches and public exploit code increases the likelihood of exploitation attempts, especially targeting organizations with limited network segmentation or monitoring. This vulnerability poses a moderate risk to critical infrastructure, enterprises, and small-to-medium businesses using this router model, especially where VPN security is paramount.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Feb 2026, 21:56 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats