CVE-2026-9424
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 EW-7438RPn 1.31. The affected element is the function formWlanMP of the file /goform/formWlanMP of the component Content-Type Handler. Executing a manipulation of the argument ateFunc/ateGain/ateTxCount/ateChan/ateRate/ateMacID/e2pTxPower1/e2pTxPower2/e2pTxPower3/e2pTxPower4/e2pTxPower5/e2pTxPower6/e2pTxPower7/e2pTx2Power1/e2pTx2Power2/e2pTx2Power3/e2pTx2Power4/e2pTx2Power5/e2pTx2Power6/e2pTx2Power7/ateTxFreqOffset/ateMode/ateBW/ateAntenna/e2pTxFreqOffset/e2pTxPwDeltaB/e2pTxPwDeltaG/e2pTxPwDeltaMix/e2pTxPwDeltaN/readE2P can lead to os command injection. The attack may be launched 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 · high confidenceThe Edimax EW-7438RPn wireless range extender firmware 1.31 contains an OS command injection vulnerability in the formWlanMP function of /goform/formWlanMP. Multiple parameters including ateFunc, ateGain, ateChan, ateRate, and various e2pTx* and ate* parameters are not properly sanitized before being passed to system shell commands, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands.
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 device modelAccess the device's web管理界面或检查设备标签，确认型号为Edimax EW-7438RPnAffected if 设备型号不是Edimax EW-7438RPn则不受此特定CVE影响
-
Check firmware version通过设备的web界面或通过telnet/ssh登录后执行版本查看命令，查找固件版本信息Affected if 固件版本为1.31或该系列中任何受影响的版本（未提供具体范围，应视为1.31及可能的其他小版本）
-
Verify web interface is accessible尝试通过浏览器访问设备的web管理界面（通常为192.168.1.1或设备默认IP）Affected if web界面无法访问则攻击面减小，但漏洞代码仍可能存在
-
Confirm vulnerable endpoint exists检查设备web界面URL结构，访问/goform/formWlanMP或查看是否存在formWlanMP相关的表单处理Affected if 设备存在/goform/formWlanMP端点且web管理界面可从网络访问则存在被利用风险
-
Identify exposure to untrusted networks检查设备是否直接暴露在互联网上或可从非受信任网络访问web管理界面Affected if 设备web管理界面从互联网可直接访问则存在较高利用风险
如果确认使用的是Edimax EW-7438RPn设备且固件版本为1.31，同时设备的web管理界面可通过网络访问，则该环境受CVE-2026-9424影响，存在远程命令注入风险。
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, network-level controls should be implemented: restrict access to the device's web management interface to trusted IP addresses only, place the device behind a firewall, and consider replacing the end-of-life device with a supported model.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9424 — 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-2026-9424 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