CVE-2018-9075
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 · uneditedFor some Iomega, Lenovo, LenovoEMC NAS devices versions 4.1.402.34662 and earlier, when joining a PersonalCloud setup, an attacker can craft a command injection payload using backtick "``" characters in the client:password parameter. As a result, arbitrary commands may be executed as the root user. The attack requires a value __c and iomega parameter.
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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in Iomega, Lenovo, and LenovoEMC NAS devices (versions 4.1.402.34662 and earlier) allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands as root via the client:password parameter in PersonalCloud setup by using backtick characters. The attack requires the __c and iomega parameters.
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<= 4.1.402.34662CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Check the NAS firmware versionAccess the NAS administrative interface and navigate to System Settings or About page to view the installed firmware version, or run the command 'get system info' via SSH if availableAffected if The firmware version is 4.1.402.34662 or earlier (any version up to and including this build)
-
Verify PersonalCloud feature is enabledLog into the NAS admin panel and look for PersonalCloud settings under Network or Cloud Services configuration sectionsAffected if PersonalCloud is configured and the service is active on the device
-
Confirm web interface accessibilityCheck if the NAS web interface is reachable on the network by attempting to access the login page (typically ports 80 or 443)Affected if The administrative web interface is accessible from the network where the attacker could send the malicious request
-
Identify the vulnerable endpoint parametersInspect the PersonalCloud configuration page in the web interface and note if the URL accepts '__c' and 'iomega' parameters during setupAffected if The PersonalCloud setup accepts these parameters and passes them to the underlying system without sanitization
The device is affected if it runs LenovoEMC firmware version 4.1.402.34662 or earlier and has PersonalCloud feature enabled with the web interface accessible to the attacker.
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 update when available. If no update exists, implement strict input validation on the client:password parameter to reject backtick and other command substitution characters. Network segmentation can reduce exposure to unauthenticated attackers.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-9075 — 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-2018-9075 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