A command injection (missing input validation, escaping) in the monitoring or memory status web interface in AudioCodes 405HD (firmware 2.2.
A command injection (missing input validation, escaping) in the monitoring or memory status web interface in AudioCodes 405HD (firmware 2.2.12) VoIP phone allows an authenticated remote attacker in the same network as the device to trigger OS commands (like starting telnetd or opening a reverse shell) via a POST request to the web server. In combination with another attack (unauthenticated password change), the attacker can circumvent the authentication requirement.
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for the hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities in the database; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for help- Published
- Apr 25, 2019
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 4.1% · 90th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-78
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
33
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 32 / 40 · 8.0 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 4.1%
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| audiocodes | 405hd firmware | cpe:2.3:o:audiocodes:405hd_firmware |
| audiocodes | 405hd | cpe:2.3:h:audiocodes:405hd |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- audiocodes 405hd firmware2.2.12
Same product
audiocodes: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2018-16219A missing password verification in the web interface in AudioCodes 405HD VoIP phone with firmware 2.2.12 allows an remote attacker (in the s35Monitor
- CVE-2018-16220Cross Site Scripting in different input fields (domain field and personal settings) in AudioCodes 405HD VoIP phone with firmware 2.2.12 allo24Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone on the same network segment can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-78 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Root cause
User input is inserted as text into a shell command. The shell may interpret special characters in the input as part of the command.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-78 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
const host = req.body.host;exec("ping -c 1 " + host, onResult);Fixed
const host = req.body.host;if (!/^[a-z0-9.-]{1,253}$/i.test(host)) return res.sendStatus(400);execFile("ping", ["-c", "1", host], onResult);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Command DelimitersCAPEC-15likelihood: High · High
- Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation LayersCAPEC-43likelihood: Medium · High
- Argument InjectionCAPEC-6likelihood: High · High
- OS Command InjectionCAPEC-88likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.