Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

TP-Link Archer AX-21 Command Injection Vulnerability

Exploited · KEV 2023-05-01Public exploit codeCVE-2023-1389CWE-77

Exploited since 2023-05-01. No WAF vendor names it yet. Our CRS test: blocked.

Edge rules
0/8
Our test
Blocked
CVSS
8.8
EPSS
100.0% Top 0.1%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts
Published
2023-03-15
TP-Link Archer AX21 (AX1800) firmware versions before 1.1.4 Build 20230219 contained a command injection vulnerability in the country form of the /cgi-bin/luci;stok=/locale endpoint on the web management interface. Specifically, the… More

TP-Link Archer AX21 (AX1800) firmware versions before 1.1.4 Build 20230219 contained a command injection vulnerability in the country form of the /cgi-bin/luci;stok=/locale endpoint on the web management interface. Specifically, the country parameter of the write operation was not sanitized before being used in a call to popen(), allowing an unauthenticated attacker to inject commands, which would be run as root, with a simple POST request.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2023-1389: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
High · 8.8 / 10

Exploitable from an adjacent network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Same network onlyNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker must be on the same local network, Wi-Fi or VPN segment.
    Adjacent 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:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationActive

Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

2 found
0 Metasploit1 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2023-03-15
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2023-05-01
    Added to CISA KEV
    Confirmed exploitation in the wild
  3. 2023-08-10
    Exploit published on Exploit-DB
    TP-Link Archer AX21 - Unauthenticated Command Injection
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  5. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

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)No public claim

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 rulesBefore feed history

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 patchesBefore feed history

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)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.