CVE-2026-7683
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 weakness has been identified in Edimax BR-6428nC up to 1.16. This affects an unknown function of the file /goform/setWAN of the component Web Interface. This manipulation of the argument pppUserName/pptpUserName causes command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in Edimax BR-6428nC routers (up to v1.16) in the web interface's /goform/setWAN function. The pppUserName and pptpUserName parameters are not properly sanitized, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands via the WAN settings form.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 device modelLog into the router web interface and navigate to the status or system information page, or check the device label on the router itself, to verify the model is Edimax BR-6428nCAffected if The device is an Edimax BR-6428nC router
-
Check firmware versionIn the router web interface, go to the status or system information page and locate the firmware version field. Compare this version to v1.16Affected if The firmware version is v1.16 or any earlier version (the vulnerability affects versions up to v1.16)
-
Verify web management interface accessibilityAttempt to access the router web interface from an external network (WAN side) by entering the router's public IP address in a browser, or check the router firewall settings to determine if port 80/443 is open to WANAffected if The web management interface is accessible from the WAN (internet) side
-
Check if WAN access to /goform/setWAN is possibleIf the web interface is WAN-accessible, verify whether the router allows unauthenticated or authenticated access to the /goform/setWAN endpoint by attempting a request or reviewing access control rulesAffected if The /goform/setWAN function is reachable from the WAN interface without being blocked by firewall rules
A user is affected if they own an Edimax BR-6428nC router running firmware version v1.16 or earlier AND the router web management interface (including the setWAN function) is accessible from the WAN side, allowing remote command injection via the pppUserName or pptpUserName parameters.
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 dataSince the vendor did not respond and no patch is available, restrict network access to the device's web management interface (disable WAN access, use firewall rules), or replace the affected device with a supported model.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7683 — 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-2026-7683 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