CVE-2026-9514
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 vulnerability has been detected in Totolink CA750-PoE 6.2c.510. Impacted is the function setNetworkDiag of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Setting Handler. The manipulation of the argument NetDiagHost/NetDiagPingNum/NetDiagPingSize/NetDiagPingTimeOut/NetDiagTracertHop is directly passed by the attacker/so we can control the NetDiagHost/NetDiagPingNum/NetDiagPingSize/NetDiagPingTimeOut/NetDiagTracertHop leads to os command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.
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 confidenceOS command injection vulnerability in Totolink CA750-PoE router firmware 6.2c.510. The setNetworkDiag function in /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi accepts multiple network diagnostic parameters (NetDiagHost, NetDiagPingNum, NetDiagPingSize, NetDiagPingTimeOut, NetDiagTracertHop) that are passed directly to system shell commands without input sanitization, 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 the device modelAccess the router's web interface or check the device label/marketing materials to confirm it is a Totolink CA750-PoE deviceAffected if The device is not a Totolink CA750-PoE router, then this CVE does not apply
-
Check the firmware versionLog into the router's web interface and navigate to the firmware/version information page, or use the router's administration CLI if available, to determine the installed firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is exactly 6.2c.510, indicating the specific affected version
-
Verify the CGI endpoint existsAttempt to access the URL /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi on the router's web server (for example, http://<router-ip>/cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi)Affected if The endpoint returns a response (rather than a 404 error), indicating the vulnerable CGI binary is present
-
Check if remote web administration is enabledIn the router's web interface, navigate to the administration or remote management settings and verify whether remote access to the web interface is permitted from external IP addressesAffected if Remote administration is enabled and the web interface is accessible from untrusted networks, the attack surface is present
You are affected if you have a Totolink CA750-PoE router running firmware version 6.2c.510 with the /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi endpoint present and remote web administration accessible to untrusted networks.
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 dataApply vendor firmware update if available; otherwise disable network diagnostic functions via access controls, implement WAF rules to detect command injection patterns, and restrict access to the web interface to trusted IPs.
- 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-2026-9514 — 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-2026-9514 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