CWE-321Weakness · CWE-321

CVE-2026-28742

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable 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
Naxclow devices use a uniform request-signing scheme based on a hard-coded, platform-wide salt embedded in every firmware image. Once this salt is recovered from any device, an attacker can generate valid signatures for arbitrary device or account operations due to the absence of per-device keys, server-side nonce tracking, or replay protections. Combined with the system’s use of plain HTTP for control-plane traffic, the construction enables broad request forgery and impersonation across the platform.

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 confidence

Naxclow devices use a uniform request-signing scheme with a hard-coded, platform-wide salt embedded in all firmware. Once extracted, this salt enables attackers to forge valid signatures for arbitrary device or account operations due to missing per-device keys, server-side nonce tracking, and replay protections, compounded by plain HTTP control-plane traffic.

MitigationReplace the hard-coded salt with per-device unique cryptographic keys, implement server-side nonce tracking with replay protection, and migrate control-plane traffic from plain HTTP to HTTPS/TLS.

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
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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

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

  1. Identify Naxclow device in your environment
    Check your device inventory or run 'grep -i naxclow /etc/os-release' or check device model/firmware banner for 'Naxclow' branding
    Affected if The device is a Naxclow product and uses request signing for API/authentication operations
  2. Verify plain HTTP is used for control traffic
    Capture network traffic or check device configuration files for HTTP (port 80) endpoints used for device management, API calls, or control commands. Look for 'http://' URLs in configuration or proxy settings.
    Affected if Control-plane traffic uses plain HTTP instead of HTTPS (port 443 or TLS)
  3. Inspect firmware for hard-coded cryptographic salt
    Extract firmware (via vendor tools, JTAG, or flash dump) and search for static strings: run 'strings firmware.bin | grep -i salt' or 'hexdump -C firmware.bin | grep -i salt' to find embedded cryptographic material
    Affected if Firmware contains a hard-coded, static salt value shared across all device units
  4. Check for per-device unique keys
    Extract device-specific configuration or key store (check /etc/keys/, /config/, or vendor-specific paths) and compare the signing key against another device of the same model
    Affected if All devices share the same signing key or salt rather than having unique per-device cryptographic material
  5. Verify server-side nonce tracking exists
    Review server or controller software configuration, API logs, or authentication middleware for nonce/ timestamp validation on signed requests
    Affected if The backend does not implement nonce, timestamp, or sequence number validation to prevent replay of captured requests

You are affected if you have Naxclow devices using plain HTTP with a hard-coded firmware salt and no per-device keys or server-side replay protections.

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

Replace the hard-coded salt with per-device unique cryptographic keys, implement server-side nonce tracking with replay protection, and migrate control-plane traffic from plain HTTP to HTTPS/TLS.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation12.0 h
  • Implementation60.0 h
  • Testing24.0 h
  • Review / QA12.0 h
108.0 hours of engineering $18,960
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $30,336.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-28742 — 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-2026-28742 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