CVE-2019-9860
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedDue to unencrypted signal communication and predictability of rolling codes, an attacker can "desynchronize" an ABUS Secvest wireless remote control (FUBE50014 or FUBE50015) relative to its controlled Secvest wireless alarm system FUAA50000 3.01.01, so that sent commands by the remote control are not accepted anymore.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe ABUS Secvest wireless alarm system uses unencrypted RF communication with predictable rolling codes, allowing an attacker to transmit malicious signals that desynchronize the remote control (FUBE50014/FUBE50015) from the base station (FUAA50000 v3.01.01). Once desynchronized, legitimate commands are rejected, effectively disabling the wireless alarm system's remote control functionality.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 3.01.01all versionsall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify base station firmware versionAccess the ABUS Secvest base station (FUAA50000) admin interface or check the device label/documentation to determine the installed firmware versionAffected if Firmware version is exactly 3.01.01
-
Identify remote control models in useInspect the remote controls paired with the base station and note the model numbers printed on the devices or listed in the system pairing logsAffected if Remote controls are model FUBE50014 or FUBE50015 (any firmware version)
-
Verify RF communication is unencryptedCheck the wireless alarm system configuration settings for RF encryption status; look for options related to encryption (AES-128) or secure communication protocolsAffected if RF communication is configured without encryption or shows no encryption enabled
-
Check for desynchronization symptomsAttempt to arm/disarm the system using the remote controls and observe if legitimate commands are rejected or the remote appears non-responsive despite fresh batteriesAffected if Legitimate remote commands are consistently rejected or the remote fails to communicate with the base station after normal operation
You are affected if your base station runs firmware 3.01.01 and uses FUBE50014 or FUBE50015 remote controls with unencrypted RF communication, particularly if remote commands are being rejected.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataReplace affected remote controls and base stations with newer models implementing proper encryption (e.g., AES-128) and secure rolling code algorithms; contact ABUS for firmware updates if available, otherwise treat this as a hardware replacement scenario.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-9860 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2019-9860 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data