Realtek AP-Router SDK Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
Exploited since 2021-11-03. No WAF vendor names it yet. Our CRS test: blocked.
Realtek Jungle SDK version v2.x up to v3.4.14B provides an HTTP web server exposing a management interface that can be used to configure the access point. Two versions of this management interface exists: one based on Go-Ahead named webs… More
Realtek Jungle SDK version v2.x up to v3.4.14B provides an HTTP web server exposing a management interface that can be used to configure the access point. Two versions of this management interface exists: one based on Go-Ahead named webs and another based on Boa named boa. Both of them are affected by these vulnerabilities. Specifically, these binaries are vulnerable to the following issues: - stack buffer overflow in formRebootCheck due to unsafe copy of submit-url parameter - stack buffer overflow in formWsc due to unsafe copy of submit-url parameter - stack buffer overflow in formWlanMultipleAP due to unsafe copy of submit-url parameter - stack buffer overflow in formWlSiteSurvey due to unsafe copy of ifname parameter - stack buffer overflow in formStaticDHCP due to unsafe copy of hostname parameter - stack buffer overflow in formWsc due to unsafe copy of 'peerPin' parameter - arbitrary command execution in formSysCmd via the sysCmd parameter - arbitrary command injection in formWsc via the 'peerPin' parameter Exploitability of identified issues will differ based on what the end vendor/manufacturer did with the Realtek SDK webserver. Some vendors use it as-is, others add their own authentication implementation, some kept all the features from the server, some remove some of them, some inserted their own set of features. However, given that Realtek SDK implementation is full of insecure calls and that developers tends to re-use those examples in their custom code, any binary based on Realtek SDK webserver will probably contains its own set of issues on top of the Realtek ones (if kept). Successful exploitation of these issues allows remote attackers to gain arbitrary code execution on the device.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2021-35395.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2021-08-16CVE publishedCVE List
- 2021-11-03Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked itparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked itparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.