dbcve.org
Cleartext TransmissionWeakness · CWE-319

CVE-2026-2539

MEDIUM · 5.7 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-02-15
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
No privileges Zero-click

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
The RF communication protocol in the Micca KE700 car alarm system does not encrypt its data frames. An attacker with a radio interception tool (e.g., SDR) can capture the random number and counters transmitted in cleartext, which is sensitive information required for authentication.

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

The Micca KE700 car alarm system uses an unencrypted RF communication protocol that transmits authentication-critical values (random numbers and counters) in cleartext. An attacker with a software-defined radio (SDR) can intercept these values, potentially enabling replay or authentication bypass attacks against the vehicle security system.

MitigationImplement cryptographic encryption (e.g., AES-128 or stronger) on the RF data frames and incorporate rolling codes or challenge-response authentication to prevent replay attacks. This likely requires a firmware update from the vendor.

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
Adjacent
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
Authentication
None
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:N/R:X/V:D/RE:H/U:X

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. Confirm Micca KE700 car alarm presence
    Inspect your vehicle documentation, alarm system labeling, or contact your installer to identify the exact car alarm model installed. Check for 'KE700' or 'Micca' branding on the alarm hardware if accessible.
    Affected if The Micca KE700 car alarm system is installed in the vehicle.
  2. Verify RF encryption configuration
    Use a software-defined radio (SDR) such as RTL-SDR or HackRF to monitor the RF frequencies used by the alarm system (typically 315 MHz or 433 MHz for car alarms). Inspect the captured RF traffic using software like GNU Radio or SDR# to determine if data frames appear as cleartext or are visibly encrypted (encrypted data appears as random/noise-like).
    Affected if RF transmissions from the alarm system are transmitted in cleartext without encryption.
  3. Check for rolling code implementation
    Capture multiple RF transmissions from the remote fob using SDR equipment over time. Compare the transmitted data values across successive button presses - if the same values or predictably incrementing counters are observed, rolling codes are NOT implemented. If values change randomly and cannot be predicted, rolling codes may be present.
    Affected if The system does not implement rolling codes and authentication values repeat or increment predictably.
  4. Inspect authentication mechanism documentation
    Review the product manual, vendor specifications, or alarm system configuration settings to determine what authentication mechanism (if any) is used for RF communication. Look for mentions of challenge-response, encrypted rolling codes, or AES encryption.
    Affected if The system documentation or configuration shows no cryptographic authentication mechanism is in use for RF links.

You are affected if the Micca KE700 car alarm system is installed and its RF communication transmits authentication values in cleartext without encryption or rolling code protection.

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 cryptographic encryption (e.g., AES-128 or stronger) on the RF data frames and incorporate rolling codes or challenge-response authentication to prevent replay attacks. This likely requires a firmware update from the vendor.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation40.0 h
  • Testing16.0 h
  • Review / QA8.0 h
68.0 hours of engineering $11,840
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $18,944.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-2539 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-2539 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