CVE-2026-9650
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 · uneditedCWE-522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials vulnerability that could cause unauthorized access and exposure of sensitive information when unauthenticated attacker accesses credentials stored within firmware or system files. With this credential an attacker could subsequently compromise the device if they have physical access to the device.
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 confidenceThis is a CWE-522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials vulnerability where credentials stored in firmware or system files can be accessed by an unauthenticated attacker. The credentials are stored without adequate protection (likely plaintext or weakly encrypted), allowing unauthorized access to sensitive information. Physical access to the device enables full compromise using the exposed credentials.
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< 11.06.32< 11.06.38CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 the Easylogic T150 firmware versionAccess the device admin interface or check the firmware file, then run: cat /etc/version or look at the main firmware banner during boot-up. Compare the version number to 11.06.32Affected if The installed version is below 11.06.32
-
Identify the Saitel Dp firmware versionAccess the device admin interface or check the firmware file, then run: cat /etc/version or look at the main firmware banner during boot-up. Compare the version number to 11.06.38Affected if The installed version is below 11.06.38
-
Locate credential storage files in the firmwareIf you have firmware image access, search for files containing terms like: passwd, shadow, credentials, passwords, users, or config. Common paths include /etc/, /config/, /var/, or embedded configuration partitions within the firmware binaryAffected if Credential files exist in plaintext form within the firmware filesystem
-
Inspect credential file contents for encryptionExamine the identified credential files using: cat [credential_file_path] or hexdump -C [credential_file_path]. Check if password fields contain base64-encoded strings, encrypted hashes, or plaintext passwords rather than salted hash formatsAffected if Password fields contain plaintext strings, weak base64 encoding, or recognizable plaintext credentials instead of salted cryptographic hashes
A user is affected if their device runs any firmware version below 11.06.32 for Easylogic T150 or below 11.06.38 for Saitel Dp, AND credential storage files contain plaintext or weakly encoded passwords rather than properly hashed values.
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.
dbcve · scoped11.06.3211.06.38
Implement proper credential protection by encrypting or hashing stored credentials, using secure storage mechanisms (like TPM or secure enclaves), and ensuring firmware/system files have appropriate access controls to prevent unauthorized extraction.
Easylogic T150: upgrade to 11.06.32 | Saitel Dp: upgrade to 11.06.38
- 1. Navigate to Schneider Electric's official firmware download portal at download.schneider-electric.com
- 2. Locate and download the Easylogic T150 firmware version 11.06.32 or later
- 3. Locate and download the Saitel Dp firmware version 11.06.38 or later
- 4. Follow Schneider Electric's documented firmware update procedure for your specific device model
- 5. After updating, verify the firmware version matches the fixed release (11.06.32 for T150 or 11.06.38 for Saitel Dp)
- 6. Change any credentials that may have been stored in the previous vulnerable firmware versions
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9650 — 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-2026-9650 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