CVE-2024-46280
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 · uneditedPIX-LINK LV-WR22 RE3002-P1-01_V117.0 is vulnerable to Improper Access Control. The TELNET service is enabled with weak credentials for a root-level account, without the possibility of changing them.
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 PIX-LINK LV-WR22 RE3002-P1-01_V117.0 router has TELNET service enabled with hardcoded weak credentials that provide root-level access, and users cannot change these credentials due to firmware limitations, allowing remote attackers to gain full control of the device.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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 device model and firmware versionCheck the device label, web interface, or administrative panel for the exact model number PIX-LINK LV-WR22 RE3002-P1-01 and firmware version V117.0Affected if The device matches the affected model and firmware version
-
Detect if TELNET service is listeningScan the device from the local network using a port scanner (such as nmap) targeting port 23 (TELNET)Affected if Port 23 is open and accepting TELNET connections
-
Verify remote TELNET accessibilityAttempt to connect to the device TELNET service from an external network or check if port 23 is exposed to the internet via router port forwarding or firewall rulesAffected if TELNET service is reachable from outside the local network
-
Confirm hardcoded credential accessAttempt to authenticate to the TELNET service using known weak or default credentials for this deviceAffected if Authentication succeeds with root-level access using hardcoded credentials
The device is affected if it is a PIX-LINK LV-WR22 RE3002-P1-01 with firmware V117.0 that has TELNET port 23 exposed and accessible using hardcoded credentials.
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 the TELNET service through device configuration if possible, or implement network access controls to restrict TELNET access; if the service cannot be disabled or secured, replace the device with a supported model that allows credential management.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-46280 — 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-2024-46280 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