CVE-2024-57590
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 · uneditedTRENDnet TEW-632BRP v1.010B31 devices have an OS command injection vulnerability in the CGl interface "ntp_sync.cgi",which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via parameter "ntp_server" passed to the "ntp_sync.cgi" binary through a POST request.
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 confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in TRENDnet TEW-632BRP v1.010B31 routers allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by injecting shell metacharacters into the ntp_server parameter of the ntp_sync.cgi CGI binary via POST request.
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= 1.010b31CVSS 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 or log into the admin interface and look for the model name in the status or system information pageAffected if Device is not a TRENDnet TEW-632BRP, then not affected
-
Check the firmware versionIn the router admin interface, navigate to the firmware or system information section and note the firmware version numberAffected if Firmware version is not 1.010b31, then not affected
-
Verify management interface accessibilityAttempt to access the router web interface at the LAN IP (typically 192.168.1.1) or WAN IP if remote management is enabled. Check if ntp_sync.cgi is reachable via HTTP POST requestsAffected if The ntp_sync.cgi endpoint is not accessible from your network position, then the specific command injection vector is not reachable
You are affected only if you have a TRENDnet TEW-632BRP device running firmware version 1.010b31 AND the management interface containing ntp_sync.cgi is network-accessible to an 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 dataIf vendor firmware update is unavailable, disable or restrict access to the ntp_sync.cgi interface and implement network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted users only.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-57590 — 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-2024-57590 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