CVE-2006-2561
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedEdimax BR-6104K router allows remote attackers to bypass access restrictions and conduct unauthorized operations via a UPnP request with a modified InternalClient parameter (possibly within NewInternalClient), which is not validated, as demonstrated by using AddPortMapping to forward arbitrary traffic.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe Edimax BR-6104K router's UPnP implementation fails to validate the InternalClient parameter in AddPortMapping requests. Remote attackers can exploit this by sending crafted UPnP requests with a modified NewInternalClient value to create arbitrary port mappings, bypassing the router's intended access restrictions and forwarding traffic to any internal IP address of the attacker's choosing.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the router modelCheck the device label on the router casing or log into the router's web administration interface (commonly at 192.168.2.1) and look for the model number on the status or system information pageAffected if The device is an Edimax BR-6104K
-
Verify UPnP is enabledIn the router's web interface, navigate to the UPnP settings section (typically under Advanced Settings, Gaming, or Applications) and check whether the UPnP function is turned ONAffected if UPnP functionality is enabled on the router
-
Determine WAN accessibility of UPnPCheck if the router's UPnP service (port 1900/UDP) or administration interface is exposed to the internet. This can be done by attempting to access the router from an external IP or reviewing port forwarding rules that allow inbound access to UPnP portsAffected if The UPnP service or router administration interface is reachable from the internet (WAN)
-
Inspect existing port mappingsIn the router's web interface, go to the port forwarding or virtual server section and review all configured mappings. Look for any entries with internal IP addresses that you did not intentionally createAffected if There are unauthorized or unexpected port mappings pointing to internal IP addresses you did not configure
You are affected if you use an Edimax BR-6104K router with UPnP enabled, particularly if the device is accessible from the internet, as attackers could create arbitrary port mappings to redirect traffic.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataDisable UPnP functionality on the router if not actively required for local devices, or replace the device with a currently-supported model if firmware updates are unavailable.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,624.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-2561 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2006-2561 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data