CVE-2024-6045
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 · uneditedCertain models of D-Link wireless routers contain an undisclosed factory testing backdoor. Unauthenticated attackers on the local area network can force the device to enable Telnet service by accessing a specific URL and can log in by using the administrator credentials obtained from analyzing the firmware.
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 confidenceD-Link wireless routers contain an undocumented factory testing backdoor. Unauthenticated attackers on the local network can trigger a specific URL that enables the Telnet service, then log in using administrator credentials that can be extracted from firmware analysis.
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 the D-Link router model and firmware versionAccess the router's web administration interface and check the status or firmware version page, or use Nmap to identify the device and its HTTP service headersAffected if The device is a D-Link wireless router running a firmware version within the affected range (if known) or an undetermined version
-
Inspect for the undocumented factory testing backdoor URLFrom a local network client, attempt to access the specific backdoor URL endpoint (research the specific path associated with this CVE or check for hidden test pages in the router's firmware)Affected if The router responds to the backdoor URL with an unexpected result (enabling Telnet or returning configuration data)
-
Verify Telnet service availability on the deviceUse Nmap or telnet to check if port 23 is open and responding on the router's IP address: nmap -p 23 <router-ip>Affected if Port 23/Telnet is open and accessible from the local network when it should not be
-
Test default or extracted credentials via TelnetConnect via Telnet to the router and attempt login with default administrator credentials or credentials known to be extracted from the affected firmwareAffected if Login succeeds with default or extracted credentials, granting administrative access
The device is affected if it is a D-Link wireless router with the undocumented backdoor URL present, Telnet service enabled, and accessible using default or firmware-extracted 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 dataNetwork isolation and segmentation should be implemented to limit LAN access. If firmware updates are unavailable from D-Link, affected devices should be replaced. Telnet access should be disabled at the network perimeter.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6045 — 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-2024-6045 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