CVE-2026-9441
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-6478AC 1.23. Affected by this issue is the function formiNICbasic of the file /goform/formiNICbasic of the component POST Request Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument rootAPmac results in command injection. The attack can be initiated 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 · high confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in Edimax BR-6478AC router v1.23. The formiNICbasic function in /goform/formiNICbasic fails to sanitize the rootAPmac parameter in POST requests, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary shell commands. Public exploit available.
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 modelCheck the router label or login to the web interface and look for the model number (BR-6478AC) in the status or system information pageAffected if The device is NOT an Edimax BR-6478AC router (if different model, this CVE does not apply)
-
Check the firmware versionLogin to the router web interface, navigate to System or Administration settings, and locate the firmware version informationAffected if The installed firmware version is 1.23 (exact match to the affected version)
-
Verify the vulnerable web interface existsAttempt to access the URL /goform/formiNICbasic on the router (either locally or remotely if remote management is enabled)Affected if The /goform/formiNICbasic endpoint responds (the function exists in this firmware version)
-
Check if remote management is enabledIn the router web interface, go to Advanced Settings or Administration and look for Remote Management, Remote Access, or WAN Management settingsAffected if Remote administration/web management from WAN is enabled (increases exposure to remote attackers)
-
Confirm the management interface is accessible from the networkAttempt to reach the router login page from a browser using the WAN IP address (if remote management is enabled) or from the local networkAffected if The router web management interface is reachable over the network (either LAN or WAN)
You are affected if you have an Edimax BR-6478AC router running firmware version 1.23 with the web interface accessible (especially if remote management is enabled), as the unauthenticated command injection in /goform/formiNICbasic can be exploited.
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 dataRestrict network access to the router's web interface; if vendor patch unavailable, replace affected devices with supported hardware. Consider network segmentation as compensating control.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,152.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9441 — 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-2026-9441 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