Skip to content
Noroxi
CVE-2026-0652· NVD / CVE Program· CNA TPLink

Remote Code Execution on TP-Link Tapo C260 by Guest User

On TP-Link Tapo C260 v1, command injection vulnerability exists due to improper sanitization in certain POST parameters during configuration synchronization. An authenticated attacker can execute arbitrary system commands with high impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability. It may cause full device compromise.

HighCVSS 8.7 · v4.0—No exploit No fix recorded
Published
Feb 10, 2026
Updated
Jun 17, 2026
EPSS
22.4% · 98th percentile
Follow this CVE

Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.

Report tools

JSON

Action score

41

Plan

Add it to your regular patch cycle.

CVSS
34 / 40 · 8.7 / 10
CISA KEV
0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS
7 / 30 · 22.4%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation
none
Automatable
no
Technical impact
total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD
—
CNA · TPLink
8.7
NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Affected systems

VendorProduct
tp-linktapo c260 firmware
tp-linktapo c260

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

  • tp-link tapo c260 firmwarebefore 1.1.9

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (TPLink). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

  • TP-Link Systems Inc. Tapo C260 v1

    • before 1.1.9 Build 251226 Rel.55870naffected

Same product

tp-link: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

  • CVE-2026-0653Insecure Access Control on TP-Link Tapo D235 and C260
    28Monitor
  • CVE-2026-0651Path Traversal on TP-Link Tapo D235, C211, C520WS and C260 via Local https
    27Monitor

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.

EPSS, last 120 days+1% in 7 days

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 researchers

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

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

  • Anyone who can reach it over the internet 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
Integrity
Availability
Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
X

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-78 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

CVSS vector

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 class

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

ts
const host = req.body.host;exec("ping -c 1 " + host, onResult);

Fixed

ts
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.

ATT&CK techniques

—

Change log

No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.

References

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records