CVE-2026-9378
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 security flaw has been discovered in Edimax BR-6675nD 1.12. This affects the function formHwSet of the file /goform/formHwSet of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument regDomain/ABandregDomain/nic0Addr/nic1Addr/wlanAddr/inicAddr results in command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may 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-6675nD router firmware 1.12. The formHwSet function in the POST request handler /goform/formHwSet fails to sanitize user-supplied input in parameters (regDomain, ABandregDomain, nic0Addr, nic1Addr, wlanAddr, inicAddr), allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary shell commands via crafted 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.
-
Identify the device modelAccess the device's web interface or check the device label/metadata to confirm the model is Edimax BR-6675nDAffected if The device is not an Edimax BR-6675nD model
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the web management interface and navigate to the firmware version information page, or use the device's administrative console to retrieve the installed firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is not 1.12
-
Verify the web management interface is accessibleAttempt to access the device's HTTP/HTTPS web interface on the default management port (typically 80 or 443) to confirm the management service is runningAffected if The web interface is not accessible from the network being tested
-
Confirm the vulnerable endpoint is exposedSend a request to the /goform/formHwSet endpoint on the device to verify the wireless configuration form is availableAffected if The /goform/formHwSet endpoint is not reachable or returns an error
-
Check wireless configuration module accessibilityIn the web interface, navigate to the wireless settings section where hardware configuration parameters like regDomain, ABandregDomain, nic0Addr, nic1Addr, wlanAddr, and inicAddr can be accessedAffected if The wireless hardware configuration interface is not accessible or these parameters are not present
A user is affected if they are using an Edimax BR-6675nD device running firmware version 1.12 with the web management interface and wireless configuration module accessible on the network.
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.
dbcve · scopedIf firmware update unavailable, restrict network access to the device's management interface via ACLs or disable remote administration; consider replacing affected hardware since vendor did not respond to disclosure.
- Isolate the affected Edimax BR-6675nD device on a restricted network segment (VLAN) to limit exposure to untrusted actors
- Disable remote web management (HTTP/HTTPS access from WAN) if enabled on the router
- If the router's web interface is not required for legitimate operations, disable the HTTP service entirely via the device's administrative panel
- Implement network firewall rules to block external access to the device's management interface on ports 80/443
- Monitor network traffic for any attempts to access /goform/formHwSet as an indicator of reconnaissance or exploitation
- Consider replacing the affected device with a model that receives active security support
- If the device must remain in service, apply rate-limiting on upstream network equipment to reduce attack surface
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-9378 — 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-2026-9378 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