CVE-2026-10540
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 · uneditedThe Control-M/Enterprise Manager uses weak protections for stored hashes of account passwords, potentially allowing offline password recovery attacks if credential data is obtained by an attacker. This vulnerability affects Control-M/Enterprise Manager unsupported versions 9.0.20.x and potentially earlier unsupported versions
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 · moderate confidenceControl-M/Enterprise Manager stores password hashes using weak protection mechanisms, allowing offline password recovery attacks if an attacker obtains the credential database. This affects unsupported versions 9.0.20.x and earlier.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
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 Control-M/Enterprise Manager versionUse the Control-M administration interface, check the installed software inventory, or run the version command provided by BMC Control-M (typically via 'ctmversion' or through the EM web interface under About/Help)Affected if version is 9.0.20.x or lower (e.g., 9.0.20.0, 9.0.19.x, 9.0.18.x, etc.)
-
Confirm version is unsupportedVerify the identified version against vendor support lifecycle documentation - versions 9.0.20.x and earlier are listed as unsupportedAffected if the installed version falls within 9.0.20.x or earlier and is no longer supported by the vendor
-
Locate the credential databaseIdentify where Control-M/Enterprise Manager stores user credential data - typically in the EM database or configuration directory where user accounts and password hashes are maintainedAffected if the credential database exists and is accessible to local attackers or could be exfiltrated
-
Inspect password hash protection mechanismExamine the stored password hashes in the credential database using database query tools or file inspection - check if hashes appear unsalted, use weak algorithms (e.g., MD5, SHA1 without salt), or lack modern key derivation functionsAffected if passwords are stored using weak hashing (unsalted, outdated algorithms) rather than modern salted algorithms like bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2
If Control-M/Enterprise Manager version is 9.0.20.x or earlier and uses weak password hashing without proper salting and modern KDFs, the environment is vulnerable to offline password recovery attacks.
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 dataUpgrade to a supported version of Control-M/Enterprise Manager that implements stronger password hashing algorithms (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2) with proper salting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10540 — 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-2026-10540 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