Security & Threat Intelligence · 04.08.2026, 15:33 UTC
Botnet Hunting for Vulnerabilities in Diagnostic Tools, (Tue, Aug 4th)
| Schweregrad | info |
|---|---|
| CVE | ↗ ↗ ↗ ↗ |
| Kategorie | Security & Threat Intelligence |
| Quelle | SANS Internet Storm Center ↗ |
| Veröffentlicht | 04.08.2026 UTC |
Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Betroffene Kennungen: CVE-2013-7179, CVE-2020-8949, CVE-2024-12856, CVE-2024-48419. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.
This morning, I noticed specific sources "hunting" for vulnerabilities in URLs that I haven't noticed before. All of these URLs appear to be associated with diagnostic tools:
URL Count Vulnerability / 1 (simple recon for index page) /apply.cgi 20 CVE-2024-12856 Four-Faith router command injection /cgi-bin/adv_ping.cgi 20 ? /cgi-bin/diagnostic.cgi 20 CVE-2013-7179 Seowon Intech WiMAX SWU-9100 mobile route /cgi-bin/DiagnosticsMsg.cgi 20 ? /cgi-bin/ping.cgi 20 /cgi-bin/system_mgr.cgi 20 /cgi-bin/traceroute.cgi 20 /diag_ping.cgi 20 CVE-2020-8949 (maybe.. slightly different URL) Gocloud devices /goform/diagTool 20 CVE-2024-48419 (maybe..) Edimax Routers /goform/ping 20 /ping_test.cgi 20 /sys_diag.html 20
The naming of these URLs points to diagnostic tools. I was unable to find any specific vulnerabilities associated with many of the URLs, but the table above reflects those I found. But diagnostic tools often suffer from file inclusion and code execution vulnerabilities.
These tools will often call operating system commands directly, without properly separating user-provided arguments. Here is a sample vulnerability in a ping utility:
response = os.system("ping -c 1 -w2 " + hostname )
The above example is in Python. But most (all?) languages have something equivalent to "os.system" (often called "exec", "shell_exec", "process" ...) Often, proper input validation and output encoding are used to prevent this vulnerability, but, in my opinion, there is a better …