CVE-2026-77853 in FF-RFI079I4
Summary
by MITRE • 09/15/2026
Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection') issue exists in FF-RFI079I4 and FF-RFI078I4. A user who can log in to the product's M-Plane (NETCONF) may execute arbitrary OS commands.
Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 09/15/2026
The vulnerability identified as improper neutralization of special elements used in an operating system command, commonly referred to as OS Command Injection, represents a critical security flaw within the FF-RFI079I4 and FF-RFI078I4 components. This type of vulnerability falls under the CWE-78 classification, which encompasses issues where software constructs an operating system command using externally-influenced input without properly neutralizing special elements that could modify the intended command structure. In this specific instance, the flaw resides within the M-Plane interface, specifically leveraging NETCONF protocols for management and control operations. The severity of this issue is amplified by the fact that it requires authentication, meaning an attacker must first possess valid credentials to log in to the product's M-Plane before they can exploit the vulnerability. However, once authenticated access is achieved, the consequences are severe due to the direct execution capabilities granted to the user context associated with the NETCONF service.
From a technical perspective, OS Command Injection occurs when an application passes unsafe user-supplied data to a system shell or command interpreter without adequate validation or sanitization. In the context of NETCONF implementations, this often happens when configuration commands or operational queries are processed by backend scripts that invoke operating system utilities such as sh, bash, or specific device management binaries. If these scripts fail to properly escape special characters like semicolons, ampersands, pipes, or backticks, an attacker can inject additional commands into the execution stream. For example, if a user inputs a command string intended for configuration but includes appended malicious payloads, the underlying operating system will execute both the original intent and the injected payload as separate commands. This lack of input validation allows for arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the service account running the NETCONF daemon or management process.
The operational impact of this vulnerability is profound, potentially leading to complete compromise of the affected device. An authenticated attacker can use this flaw to read sensitive configuration files, exfiltrate network topology data, modify routing tables, install backdoors, or pivot into other parts of the internal network. Since NETCONF often runs with elevated privileges on networking equipment such as routers and switches, successful exploitation could grant an adversary full control over the device's operating system. This level of access enables lateral movement within the enterprise infrastructure, disruption of critical services through denial-of-service attacks via command execution, and potential data integrity violations by altering firmware or configuration states remotely. The ability to execute arbitrary OS commands effectively bypasses application-level security controls, making it one of the most dangerous classes of vulnerabilities in network management interfaces.
Mitigation strategies must focus on both immediate remediation and long-term architectural improvements. The primary defense against OS Command Injection is strict input validation and parameterization. Developers should avoid passing user-supplied data directly to system command interpreters. Instead, they should use language-specific APIs that allow for the execution of programs with explicit argument lists, thereby separating code from data. For instance, in Python or Java environments, functions like subprocess.run() with a list of arguments are safer than using shell=True which invokes the system shell and is susceptible to injection attacks. Additionally, implementing least privilege principles ensures that even if an attacker succeeds in injecting commands, they operate within restricted permissions that limit potential damage. Input sanitization should also be employed as a secondary defense layer, ensuring that only expected character sets and patterns are accepted for specific fields.
Furthermore, organizations should align their remediation efforts with industry standards such as the OWASP Top 10, which categorizes injection flaws among the most critical web application security risks, although this principle extends to network device management interfaces as well. The MITRE ATT&CK framework classifies OS Command Injection under Tactic Execution and Technique T1059, highlighting its role in enabling subsequent malicious activities like data exfiltration or persistence mechanisms. Regular code reviews focusing on how external inputs are handled before being passed to system calls can help identify such flaws early in the development lifecycle. For deployed systems, applying vendor-provided patches that address FF-RFI079I4 and FF-RFI078I4 is essential. If patching is not immediately feasible, network segmentation should be enforced to restrict access to the M-Plane interface only from trusted management stations, reducing the attack surface available to potential adversaries who might obtain valid credentials through other means such as phishing or credential stuffing attacks.