Eparking.fiApplication · Igl

CVE-2026-31903

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-03-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
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
The WebSocket Application Programming Interface lacks restrictions on the number of authentication requests. This absence of rate limiting may allow an attacker to conduct denial-of-service attacks by suppressing or mis-routing legitimate charger telemetry, or conduct brute-force attacks to gain unauthorized access.

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

The WebSocket API lacks rate limiting on authentication requests, allowing unlimited authentication attempts. This enables attackers to conduct denial-of-service attacks by flooding the system and disrupting legitimate charger telemetry, as well as brute-force attacks to guess credentials and gain unauthorized access.

MitigationImplement rate limiting on WebSocket authentication endpoints to restrict the number of authentication attempts per client within a defined time window.

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
Eparking.fiApplication
Affected:all versions

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
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/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 checks

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

  1. Identify WebSocket authentication endpoints
    Locate configuration files, code, or API definitions that define WebSocket endpoints, specifically those handling authentication (login, auth, token, credentials). Check for paths like /ws/auth, /websocket/login, or similar patterns.
    Affected if WebSocket authentication endpoints exist without explicit rate limiting configuration applied to them.
  2. Review rate limiting configuration
    Examine all rate limiting, throttling, or request filtering configurations (e.g., middleware settings, firewall rules, API gateway configs) and verify if the identified WebSocket auth endpoints are explicitly included in rate limiting rules.
    Affected if No rate limiting rules are defined or the WebSocket auth endpoints are explicitly excluded from rate limiting rules.
  3. Inspect authentication attempt logging
    Review application logs, security logs, or audit trails for WebSocket authentication events. Look for fields or markers indicating whether authentication attempts are being tracked, limited, or blocked based on frequency.
    Affected if Logs show unlimited or unthrottled authentication attempts with no evidence of rate limit enforcement (e.g., no 429 responses logged, no attempt counters).
  4. Check middleware or security implementation
    Examine the WebSocket server implementation code or middleware configuration for rate limiting logic on authentication handlers. Look for libraries, plugins, or custom code that enforce request limits.
    Affected if No rate limiting middleware or logic is present in the WebSocket authentication flow.

You are affected if WebSocket authentication endpoints exist in your Igl Eparking.fi deployment and rate limiting is not explicitly configured or enforced on those endpoints.

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 rate limiting on WebSocket authentication endpoints to restrict the number of authentication attempts per client within a defined time window.

Fix this in Eparking.fi Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
24.0 hours of engineering $4,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-31903 — 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-2026-31903 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