CVE-2020-5524
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 · uneditedAterm series (Aterm WF1200C firmware Ver1.2.1 and earlier, Aterm WG1200CR firmware Ver1.2.1 and earlier, Aterm WG2600HS firmware Ver1.3.2 and earlier) allows an attacker on the same network segment to execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges via UPnP function.
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 Aterm router series (WF1200C, WG1200CR, WG2600HS) contains a command injection vulnerability in the UPnP function. An attacker on the same network segment can send specially crafted UPnP requests to achieve arbitrary OS command execution with root privileges, effectively giving the attacker full control over the device.
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<= 1.3.2<= 1.2.1<= 1.2.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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 modelLog into the router administration interface or check the device label to determine if the model is an Aterm WF1200C, WG1200CR, or WG2600HSAffected if The router is one of these three models
-
Check the installed firmware versionAccess the router web interface (typically at 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1), navigate to the firmware or status page, and record the firmware version numberAffected if The firmware version is 1.2.1 or lower for WF1200C/WG1200CR, or 1.3.2 or lower for WG2600HS
-
Verify if UPnP is enabledIn the router web interface, locate the UPnP settings (usually under Advanced, Network, or LAN settings) and check whether the UPnP function is turned onAffected if UPnP is enabled and the router model/firmware version falls within the affected ranges
-
Assess network exposureDetermine whether untrusted devices or users can access the router's local network segment where the UPnP service listens on port 1900/TCPAffected if The router's local network segment contains untrusted devices or is accessible to attackers
The environment is affected if the router is an Aterm WF1200C, WG1200CR, or WG2600HS running firmware at or below the affected version AND UPnP is enabled, placing the device on a network segment reachable by potential attackers.
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 dataUpdate router firmware to versions newer than Ver1.2.1 (WF1200C/WG1200CR) or Ver1.3.2 (WG2600HS). If updates are unavailable, disable the UPnP function on affected devices and implement network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted network segments.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-5524 — 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-2020-5524 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