CVE-2026-2540 : Detail

CVE-2026-2540

8.4
/
Tinggi
0.01%V4
2026-02-15
11h03 +00:00
A07-Identif. and Authent. Fail
Adjacent
2026-02-17
17h06 +00:00
Notifikasi untuk CVE tertentu
Tetap terinformasi tentang perubahan untuk CVE tertentu.
Kelola notifikasi

Deskripsi CVE

Micca KE700 Acceptance of previously used rolling codes

The Micca KE700 system contains flawed resynchronization logic and is vulnerable to replay attacks. This attack requires sending two previously captured codes in a specific sequence. As a result, the system can be forced to accept previously used (stale) rolling codes and execute a command. Successful exploitation allows an attacker to clone the alarm key. This grants the attacker unauthorized access to the vehicle to unlock or lock the doors.

Solusi CVE

* Enforce strict anti-replay: The receiver must maintain a persistent state (e.g., the counter value of the last valid code). It must never accept a code with a counter value less than or equal to the last known valid counter. * Secure resynchronization logic: The logic triggered by an old code is the flaw and must be removed. Secure resynchronization should only be triggered by codes that are ahead of the current counter to allow a "drifted" key fob to re-sync.

Informasi CVE

Kelemahan Terkait

CWE-ID Nama Kelemahan Sumber
CWE-288 Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
CWE-294 Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).

Metrik

Metrik Skor Tingkat keparahan CVSS Vektor Sumber
V4.0 8.4 HIGH CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:H/V:D/RE:M

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Adjacent

The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

None

The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

None

The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

Low

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Low

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Subsequent System.

Sub Integrity Impact

Low

Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Subsequent System.

Sub Availability Impact

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

Value Density

Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated:

Diffuse

The vulnerable system has limited resources. That is, the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event are relatively small. An example of Diffuse (think: limited) Value Density would be an attack on a single email client vulnerability.

Vulnerability Response Effort

The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure.

Moderate

The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update.

EPSS

EPSS adalah model penilaian yang memprediksi kemungkinan suatu kerentanan dieksploitasi.

Skor EPSS

Model EPSS menghasilkan skor probabilitas antara 0 dan 1 (0 hingga 100%). Semakin tinggi skor, semakin besar probabilitas bahwa suatu kerentanan akan dieksploitasi.

Persentil EPSS

Persentil digunakan untuk meranking CVE berdasarkan skor EPSS mereka. Misalnya, CVE di persentil ke-95 berdasarkan skor EPSS-nya lebih mungkin dieksploitasi daripada 95% CVE lainnya. Dengan demikian, persentil digunakan untuk membandingkan skor EPSS suatu CVE dengan CVE lainnya.

Referensi