CVE-2019-16920
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 · uneditedUnauthenticated remote code execution occurs in D-Link products such as DIR-655C, DIR-866L, DIR-652, and DHP-1565. The issue occurs when the attacker sends an arbitrary input to a "PingTest" device common gateway interface that could lead to common injection. An attacker who successfully triggers the command injection could achieve full system compromise. Later, it was independently found that these are also affected: DIR-855L, DAP-1533, DIR-862L, DIR-615, DIR-835, and DIR-825.
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 confidenceUnauthenticated command injection vulnerability in D-Link router PingTest CGI endpoint allows attackers to execute arbitrary system commands with root privileges by supplying unsanitized input. This affects multiple D-Link models including DIR-655C, DIR-866L, DIR-652, DHP-1565, DIR-855L, DAP-1533, DIR-862L, DIR-615, DIR-835, and DIR-825.
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<= 3.02b05<= 1.03b04all versions<= 1.01all versionsall versionsall versionsall 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
- 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 modelCheck the device label on the router casing, or log into the web management interface and look for the model number typically displayed on the status or setup pageAffected if The model is one of the affected devices: DIR-655C, DIR-866L, DIR-652, DHP-1565, DIR-855L, DAP-1533, DIR-862L, DIR-615, DIR-835, or DIR-825
-
Determine the firmware versionLog into the router web interface and navigate to the Status or Management section to find the firmware version number displayedAffected if The firmware version falls within or below the affected ranges: DIR-655 <= 3.02b05, DIR-866L <= 1.03b04, DHP-1565 <= 1.01, or for DIR-652, DIR-855L, DAP-1533, DIR-862L, DIR-615 any version (all versions are affected)
-
Check if PingTest CGI endpoint is accessibleAttempt to access the PingTest CGI endpoint via HTTP or HTTPS, typically at a path like /pingtest.cgi or similar, from a network that can reach the routerAffected if The PingTest CGI endpoint responds to requests, indicating the feature is present and reachable on the device
-
Verify remote access is enabledIn the router web interface, check the Remote Management or Administration settings to see if remote HTTP/HTTPS access is enabled for the WAN interfaceAffected if Remote management is enabled and the router is accessible from the WAN (internet-facing) or an untrusted network
You are affected if you have one of the listed D-Link router models running an affected firmware version and the PingTest CGI endpoint is accessible from a network where attackers could reach it.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply vendor firmware updates when available. If no patch exists, disable remote management interfaces or implement network access controls to restrict exposure to trusted networks only.
- This vulnerability has no available fix from the vendor for several affected products.
- For products with firmware no longer supported by D-Link (DIR-652 all versions, DAP-1533 all versions, DIR-862l all versions, DIR-615 all versions, DIR-855l all versions), D-Link has not released firmware updates to address this vulnerability.
- Consider replacing affected devices with newer models that receive active security support.
- If replacement is not feasible, implement network-level mitigations such as firewall rules to block external access to the router's web interface from untrusted networks.
- Disable remote management interfaces if not required, restricting administrative access to local network only.
- Monitor CISA advisories and D-Link security notifications for any future firmware releases.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-16920 — 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-2019-16920 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