Netgear XR300 v1.0.3.78 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the system_name parameter at genie_dyn.cgi.
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 32/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1.6% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 75.9% of all records.
- 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.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Netgear XR300 v1.0.3.78 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the system_name parameter at genie_dyn.cgi. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a crafted request.
- Published
- Nov 5, 2024
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.6% · 75th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-78
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 32 / 40 · 8.0 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.6%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| netgear | xr300 firmware | cpe:2.3:o:netgear:xr300_firmware |
| netgear | xr300 | cpe:2.3:h:netgear:xr300 |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- netgear xr300 firmware1.0.3.78
Same product
netgear: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2021-45625Certain NETGEAR devices are affected by command injection by an unauthenticated attacker.40Plan
- CVE-2023-36499Netgear XR300 v1.0.3.78 was discovered to contain multiple buffer overflows via the wla_ssid and wlg_ssid parameters at genie_ap_wifi_change35Monitor
- CVE-2024-51021Netgear XR300 v1.0.3.78, R7000P v1.3.3.154, and R6400 v2 1.0.4.128 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the wan_g32Monitor
- CVE-2024-51008Netgear XR300 v1.0.3.78 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the system_name parameter at wiz_dyn.cgi.32Monitor
- CVE-2025-52082In Netgear XR300 V1.0.3.38_10.3.30, a stack-based buffer overflow exists in the HTTPD service through the usb_device.cgi endpoint.26Monitor
- CVE-2025-52081In Netgear XR300 V1.0.3.38_10.3.30, a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the HTTPD service through the usb_device.cgi endpo26Monitor
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.
- CVE-2024-510080 days apartNetgear XR300 v1.0.3.78 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the system_name parameter at wiz_dyn.cgi.32Monitor
- CVE-2024-510210 days apartNetgear XR300 v1.0.3.78, R7000P v1.3.3.154, and R6400 v2 1.0.4.128 was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability via the wan_g32Monitor
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:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-secondary
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.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.