Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2026-15320

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
60/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click 6 weeks old

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 · unedited
A vulnerability was detected in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. This vulnerability affects the function rt.ReloadConfig of the file pkg/channels/pico/pico.go. Performing a manipulation of the argument message.send results in missing authorization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

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 confidence

Missing authorization in Sipeed PicoClaw's rt.ReloadConfig function in pkg/channels/pico/pico.go allows remote attackers to manipulate the message.send argument without proper authentication or authorization checks, enabling unauthorized configuration reloads.

MitigationImplement proper authorization checks in the rt.ReloadConfig function to validate user permissions before allowing configuration reloads; consider upgrading to a patched version if available.

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
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if Sipeed PicoClaw is installed
    Search for pico-related processes or binaries on the system (e.g., ps aux | grep -i pico, find /usr -name '*pico*', check for pico.go imports in source code)
    Affected if Sipeed PicoClaw software is found running on the system
  2. Determine the installed PicoClaw version
    Check version information via the binary (pico --version), check package manager listings, or inspect the pico.go source file in pkg/channels/pico/ for version comments or tags
    Affected if The installed version matches or precedes the patched version (compare against any release notes or changelogs for this CVE)
  3. Verify if the rt.ReloadConfig function is network-exposed
    Review the pico.go source code for HTTP/API handlers that expose rt.ReloadConfig; check network listener configurations and port listings (netstat -tlnp) for pico-related services
    Affected if The rt.ReloadConfig function is exposed via an HTTP API, RPC, or network service without additional protection
  4. Inspect authorization controls on configuration reload
    Examine the rt.ReloadConfig implementation in pkg/channels/pico/pico.go for authorization checks (look for permission validation, authentication middleware, or role-based access control before the reload logic)
    Affected if No authorization check exists before the configuration reload logic executes, or the check is commented out/missing
  5. Check if message.send argument can be manipulated without auth
    Review the code path handling message.send arguments within rt.ReloadConfig or related functions; attempt to send a configuration reload request with modified parameters to observe if validation occurs
    Affected if The message.send argument can be modified or set without presenting valid credentials or session tokens

The environment is affected if Sipeed PicoClaw is running with the rt.ReloadConfig function exposed over a network without proper authorization checks on the message.send argument.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper authorization checks in the rt.ReloadConfig function to validate user permissions before allowing configuration reloads; consider upgrading to a patched version if available.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15320 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-15320 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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