CVE-2026-9400
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 flaw has been found in Edimax BR-6675nD 1.12. This issue affects the function formUSBStorage of the file /goform/formUSBStorage of the component POST Request Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument sub_dir can lead to command injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been published 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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in Edimax BR-6675nD router (v1.12) allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the 'sub_dir' parameter in the /goform/formUSBStorage POST request handler. The web interface fails to sanitize user input before passing it to a system call.
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 router modelCheck the device label or admin interface for the exact model number. Confirm it is an Edimax BR-6675nD.Affected if The device is not an Edimax BR-6675nD, then it is not affected by this specific CVE.
-
Check the firmware versionAccess the router admin panel (typically at 192.168.1.1) and navigate to System > Firmware Upgrade or Status page. Note the firmware version installed.Affected if The firmware version is 1.12, then it falls within the affected version range.
-
Verify USB storage feature statusLog into the router admin interface and check the USB/Storage settings page. Determine whether USB storage functionality is enabled or if a USB device is attached and configured.Affected if The USB storage feature is enabled or a USB storage device is connected and configured, then the vulnerable code path can be triggered.
-
Test for endpoint accessibilitySend a POST request to http://[router-ip]/goform/formUSBStorage with any parameter (such as sub_dir=test) using a tool like curl. Observe if the router responds or accepts the request.Affected if The endpoint responds and accepts requests, indicating the web interface is accessible and the vulnerable function can be reached.
If you have an Edimax BR-6675nD router running firmware version 1.12 with the USB storage feature enabled and the /goform/formUSBStorage endpoint is accessible, your device is affected by this command injection vulnerability.
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 dataReplace the end-of-life router or implement network segmentation to isolate the device; formal patches are unlikely as the vendor did not respond to disclosure. If continued use is required, restrict access to the web interface via firewall rules.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9400 — 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-2026-9400 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