CVE-2026-9359
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 was identified in Edimax EW-7438RPn 1.28a. Affected by this vulnerability is the function formHwSet of the file /goform/formHwSet of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument Anntena/Mcs/regDomain/nic0Addr/nic1Addr/wlanAddr/wanAddr/wlanSSID/wlanChan/comd/initgain/txcck/txofdm leads to command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might 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 · high confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in Edimax EW-7438RPn 1.28a wireless range extender. The formHwSet function in /goform/formHwSet does not properly sanitize POST request parameters (Antenna, Mcs, regDomain, nic0Addr, nic1Addr, wlanAddr, wanAddr, wlanSSID, wlanChan, comd, initgain, txcck, txofdm), allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary OS commands via crafted HTTP POST requests.
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 model is Edimax EW-7438RPnAccess the device web interface or check the device label/menu for the exact model number. Navigate to the status or system information page if available via the web UI.Affected if The device is an Edimax EW-7438RPn range extender.
-
Check firmware version is 1.28aLog into the device web interface and locate the firmware version in the status, system info, or device information page. Alternatively, inspect the HTTP response headers or the main login page source for version strings.Affected if The installed firmware version is 1.28a.
-
Verify the /goform/formHwSet endpoint existsSend a POST request to http://[device-ip]/goform/formHwSet with any parameter (e.g., a dummy Antenna=value) and observe the response. A valid endpoint may return a redirect, error, or empty response rather than a 404.Affected if The device responds to requests at /goform/formHwSet, indicating the vulnerable handler is present.
-
Confirm web management interface is accessibleAttempt to reach the device login page at http://[device-ip]/ or check if ports 80 or 443 are open on the device IP address using a port scanner or curl.Affected if The device web management interface is reachable (whether from LAN or WAN).
The environment is affected if the device is an Edimax EW-7438RPn running firmware 1.28a with the web interface and formHwSet endpoint accessible.
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 dataIsolate the device behind a firewall or disable remote web management since no vendor patch is available. Consider replacing the device with a supported model. If continued use is required, restrict network access to trusted IPs only.
- Consultation4.0 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 $1,568.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9359 — 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-2026-9359 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