CVE-2026-27849
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 · uneditedDue to missing neutralization of special elements, OS commands can be injected via the update functionality of a TLS-SRP connection, which is normally used for configuring devices inside the mesh network. This issue affects MR9600: 1.0.4.205530; MX4200: 1.0.13.210200.
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 · moderate confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in the update functionality of TLS-SRP connections on MR9600 (1.0.4.205530) and MX4200 (1.0.13.210200) routers. The missing neutralization of special elements allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the mesh network device configuration interface.
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
- 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 device modelAccess the device admin interface or check the device label/documentation to confirm the exact model number is MR9600 or MX4200Affected if Device model is MR9600 or MX4200
-
Check installed firmware versionLog into the mesh router admin panel (typically via web UI at the gateway IP) and navigate to Settings > Firmware or System > Status to view the current firmware versionAffected if Firmware version has not been patched by the vendor (no patched version range was specified in the CVE)
-
Confirm TLS-SRP feature is enabledIn the admin interface, look for TLS-SRP settings under Wireless > Mesh Settings, Network > Mesh Configuration, or Security settings. Check if the feature is actively configured for intra-mesh communicationAffected if TLS-SRP is enabled and used for mesh configuration updates
-
Verify network exposure of management interfaceCheck router firewall rules or port forwarding settings to determine if the mesh management interface (ports typically used for TLS-SRP) is accessible from untrusted network segments or the internetAffected if TLS-SRP management interface is exposed to untrusted networks or the internet
-
Inspect for suspicious command injection indicatorsReview system logs, audit logs, or shell history (if accessible via diagnostic tools) for unexpected commands, unfamiliar processes, or outbound connections originating from the mesh deviceAffected if Unusual commands or processes appear in logs, suggesting potential exploitation
You are likely affected if you operate an MR9600 or MX4200 mesh device with TLS-SRP enabled for intra-mesh updates, regardless of firmware version until a patch is confirmed by the vendor.
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 dataApply vendor-provided firmware updates as soon as available. Until then, restrict network access to the TLS-SRP management interface and monitor for suspicious update activity.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-27849 — 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-2026-27849 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