CVE-2026-4196
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been found in D-Link DNS-120, DNR-202L, DNS-315L, DNS-320, DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, DNS-321, DNR-322L, DNS-323, DNS-325, DNS-326, DNS-327L, DNR-326, DNS-340L, DNS-343, DNS-345, DNS-726-4, DNS-1100-4, DNS-1200-05 and DNS-1550-04 up to 20260205. This impacts the function cgi_recovery/cgi_backup_now/cgi_set_schedule/cgi_set_rsync_server of the file /cgi-bin/remote_backup.cgi. The manipulation leads to command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 confidenceCritical command injection vulnerability in D-Link network storage devices (multiple models DNS/DNR series). The remote_backup.cgi script contains vulnerable functions (cgi_recovery, cgi_backup_now, cgi_set_schedule, cgi_set_rsync_server) that fail to sanitize user input, allowing arbitrary OS command execution with root privileges. Public exploit availability and CVSS 9.8 indicate active exploitation is likely.
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<= 2026-02-05<= 2026-02-05<= 2026-02-05<= 2026-02-05<= 2026-02-05<= 2026-02-05<= 2026-02-05<= 2026-02-05CVSS 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 D-Link NAS modelAccess the device web interface or check the device label to confirm the exact model (e.g., DNS-320, DNS-320L, DNS-323, etc.). Match against the list of affected models.Affected if The model is one of: DNS-1550-04, DNS-315L, DNS-320, DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, DNS-321, DNS-322L, or DNS-323.
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the device web interface and navigate to the System or Status section to view the firmware version. Alternatively, check the firmware file name if you have physical access or SSH access to the device.Affected if The firmware version date is 2026-02-05 or earlier.
-
Verify if the remote_backup.cgi script is present and accessibleAttempt to access the CGI script via HTTP/HTTPS: http://[device-ip]/cgi-bin/remote_backup.cgi. Check if the script responds or returns any output.Affected if The script is present and returns a response, indicating the backup feature is available on the device.
-
Check if remote management or cloud features are enabledIn the device web interface, look for settings under Backup, Remote Access, or Cloud features. Check if remote backup functionality is configured or enabled.Affected if Remote backup features are enabled or configured, making the vulnerable functions accessible.
-
Determine network exposure of the management interfaceCheck if the device web interface (port 80/443) is accessible from the internet or untrusted networks. Review firewall rules and port forwarding configurations.Affected if The device management interface is exposed to the internet or untrusted networks, allowing unauthenticated attackers to reach the vulnerable CGI script.
The environment is affected if you have a D-Link NAS model from the list with firmware dated 2026-02-05 or earlier, and the remote_backup.cgi script is accessible either locally or remotely, especially if the management interface is internet-facing.
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 dataContact D-Link for available firmware updates; if none exist, immediately network-isolate affected devices behind firewalls and disable remote management access to mitigate exploitation until device replacement.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4196 — 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-2026-4196 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