CVE-2018-6210
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 · uneditedD-Link DIR-620 devices, with a certain Rostelekom variant of firmware 1.0.37, have a hardcoded rostel account, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access via a TELNET session.
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 confidenceD-Link DIR-620 routers running a Rostelekcom-specific firmware variant (version 1.0.37) contain a hardcoded backdoor account ('rostel') with a static password. This account is accessible via remote TELNET, allowing unauthenticated attackers to gain full administrative access to the router.
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 data= 1.0.37CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 modelAccess the router web administration panel or check the device label to confirm the model is D-Link DIR-620Affected if The device is not a D-Link DIR-620 model, then it is not affected by this specific CVE
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the router web interface and navigate to the Status or System Information page to view the firmware version, or use the command 'cat /proc/version' or 'cat /etc/firmware_version' via TELNET/SSH if accessibleAffected if The firmware version is exactly 1.0.37 (Rostelekcom variant), indicating the affected version
-
Verify if remote TELNET is enabledCheck the router web administration panel under Security or Access Control settings for TELNET service status, or attempt to connect to the router's public IP on port 23 (TELNET) from an external networkAffected if Remote TELNET access is enabled and exposed to the network, allowing potential exploitation of the backdoor
-
Confirm the rostel backdoor account existsAttempt to login via TELNET using the username 'rostel' with the static password, or inspect the router's /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow file via TELNET/SSH if administrative access is already obtainedAffected if The 'rostel' account exists and grants full administrative access, confirming the vulnerability is exploitable
The device is affected if it is a D-Link DIR-620 router running Rostelekcom firmware version 1.0.37 with remote TELNET enabled, allowing authentication with the hardcoded 'rostel' backdoor account.
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 dataApply vendor firmware patch if available; otherwise disable remote TELNET access via router administration panel, implement network segmentation to restrict TELNET exposure, or replace affected devices with supported hardware.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-6210 — 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-2018-6210 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