Mikrotik RouterOS Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow Vulnerability
Exploited since 2026-09-25. No WAF vendor names it yet.
RouterOS SSH enters the connection protocol after a client-requested rekey even though user authentication was never attempted, allowing an unauthenticated client to open a session channel and send an exec request. On affected builds the… More
RouterOS SSH enters the connection protocol after a client-requested rekey even though user authentication was never attempted, allowing an unauthenticated client to open a session channel and send an exec request. On affected builds the server dispatches the command, enabling unauthenticated creation, overwrite, and reconstruction of files in the RouterOS managed file namespace, including support files containing configuration and diagnostic data.This issue was fixed in versions: 6.49.21 (Long-term), 7.23.4 (Long-term) and 7.24.2 (Stable)
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 4.0Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and integrity.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.None
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.Low
- Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.Low
- Availability impact (vulnerable system)The component keeps working normally.None
- Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.None
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.None
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2026-09-05CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-09-25Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF 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. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.
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
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
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)
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)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
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.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.