InjectionWeakness · CWE-74

CVE-2026-8774

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-18
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
69/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
A vulnerability was detected in Edimax BR-6228NC 1.22. Affected by this issue is the function mp of the file /goform/mp of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument command results in command injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. 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 confidence

Command injection vulnerability in Edimax BR-6228NC router firmware 1.22. The POST request handler at /goform/mp does not sanitize the 'command' parameter before passing it to system execution, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux system.

MitigationSince the vendor is unresponsive and this is likely an end-of-life device, immediately restrict network access to the device's management interface via firewall rules or VLAN isolation. Replace the device with a actively supported model. If the device must remain in service, disable remote management and limit local access to trusted networks only.

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the device model
    Check the router label or login to the web interface and look for the model number (BR-6228NC) in the device info or status page
    Affected if The device is an Edimax BR-6228NC router
  2. Check the firmware version
    Log into the router web interface, navigate to Status or System Info page, and record the firmware version shown
    Affected if The firmware version is 1.22 (or compare your version to the affected version - 1.22 is explicitly listed as vulnerable)
  3. Verify the management interface is network-accessible
    Attempt to access the router's web interface (http://<device-ip>/) from a remote system, or check firewall rules that allow or block access to port 80/443 on the device's IP
    Affected if The management web interface is reachable from untrusted networks (remote command injection requires the attacker to send POST requests to the device)
  4. Confirm the vulnerable endpoint exists
    Send a POST request to http://<device-ip>/goform/mp with any payload in the 'command' parameter (for example: command=test). A response (even an error) indicates the endpoint exists and may be vulnerable
    Affected if The /goform/mp endpoint responds to POST requests - this is the vulnerable handler described in the CVE

You are affected if you have an Edimax BR-6228NC router running firmware 1.22 with its management interface accessible to untrusted networks, and the /goform/mp endpoint is present and responds to requests.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Since the vendor is unresponsive and this is likely an end-of-life device, immediately restrict network access to the device's management interface via firewall rules or VLAN isolation. Replace the device with a actively supported model. If the device must remain in service, disable remote management and limit local access to trusted networks only.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-8774 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-8774 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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