CVE-2021-45619

Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an unauthenticated attacker. This affects EX6200v2 before 1.0.1.86, EX6250 before 1.0.0.134, EX7700 before 1.0.0.216, EX8000 before 1.0.1.232, LBR1020 before 2.6.3.58, LBR20 before 2.6.3.50, R7800 before 1.0.2.80, R8900 before 1.0.5.26, R9000 before 1.0.5.26, RBS50Y before 2.7.3.22, WNR2000v5 before 1.0.0.76, XR700 before 1.0.1.36, EX6150v2 before 1.0.1.98, EX7300 before 1.0.2.158, EX7320 before 1.0.0.134, RAX10 before 1.0.2.88, RAX120 before 1.2.0.16, RAX70 before 1.0.2.88, EX6100v2 before 1.0.1.98, EX6400 before 1.0.2.158, EX7300v2 before 1.0.0.134, R6700AX before 1.0.2.88, RAX120v2 before 1.2.0.16, RAX78 before 1.0.2.88, EX6410 before 1.0.0.134, RBR10 before 2.7.3.22, RBR20 before 2.7.3.22, RBR350 before 4.3.4.7, RBR40 before 2.7.3.22, RBR50 before 2.7.3.22, EX6420 before 1.0.0.134, RBS10 before 2.7.3.22, RBS20 before 2.7.3.22, RBS350 before 4.3.4.7, RBS40 before 2.7.3.22, RBS50 before 2.7.3.22, EX6400v2 before 1.0.0.134, RBK12 before 2.7.3.22, RBK20 before 2.7.3.22, RBK352 before 4.3.4.7, RBK40 before 2.7.3.22, and RBK50 before 2.7.3.22.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Command injection vulnerabilities typically occur when:

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks. Command injection is a common problem with wrapper programs.

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/136.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/15.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/183.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/248.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/40.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/43.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/75.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/76.html

References

• https://kb.netgear.com/000064492/Security-Advisory-for-Pre-Authentication-Command-Injection-on-Some-Routers-Extenders-and-WiFi-Systems-PSV-2020-0435