CVE-2026-34798
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 · uneditedEndian Firewall version 3.3.25 and prior allow stored cross-site scripting (XSS) via the remark parameter to /cgi-bin/routing.cgi. An authenticated attacker can inject arbitrary JavaScript that is stored and executed when other users view the affected page.
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 confidenceEndian Firewall versions 3.3.25 and prior contain a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in the web interface. The `remark` parameter of `/cgi-bin/routing.cgi` does not properly sanitize user input, allowing an authenticated attacker to inject malicious JavaScript code that persists on the server and executes in the browsers of other users who access the affected page.
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<= 3.3.25CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
-
Confirm Endian Firewall Community versionAccess the web UI footer or check system package version (e.g., 'rpm -q endian-firewall' or similar package query command depending on OS). Compare the installed version number to 3.3.25.Affected if Installed version is 3.3.25 or lower (e.g., 3.3.24, 3.3.23, etc.)
-
Verify routing.cgi script is presentCheck for the presence of routing.cgi in the CGI bin directory (typically /var/www/cgi-bin/ or /cgi-bin/ on the web server). Attempt to access the routing configuration page via the web UI.Affected if routing.cgi exists and is accessible via the web interface at the expected path (e.g., /cgi-bin/routing.cgi)
-
Check for existing XSS payload in remark fieldLog into the Endian Firewall web interface as an authenticated user, navigate to the routing configuration page, and inspect the 'remark' field for any suspicious JavaScript tags (<script>, javascript:, onerror=, etc.) in the stored value.Affected if The remark field contains unsanitized HTML/JavaScript content such as <script> tags, event handlers, or encoded payloads that would execute when the page renders
You are affected if running Endian Firewall Community version 3.3.25 or prior AND the routing.cgi script is accessible AND the remark parameter contains unsanitized user-supplied content that could execute in a user's browser.
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 dataImplement input validation and output encoding for the `remark` parameter in routing.cgi. Apply context-appropriate output encoding when rendering stored remarks to prevent script execution.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,952.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-34798 — 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-2026-34798 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