VulnerabilityPublished 11 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-57263: LOGO! · CWE-759

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-57263· Medium 6.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 9 when convenient.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 10 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-pmf3-v4rm-f24p

What to do

Upgrade LOGO! Soft Comfort to 9.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SiemensLOGO! Soft Comfort	Affected <9	Fixed in 9

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, restrict access to project files to trusted users only to prevent unauthorized access to password hashes. Consider using strong, complex passwords to increase resistance against brute-force attacks.

Description

A vulnerability in LOGO! Soft Comfort versions prior to V9 involves the project password feature storing passwords as unsalted SHA-256 hashes. This weak storage method allows attackers who obtain project files to efficiently perform offline dictionary or brute-force attacks against the password hash. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 6.8, indicating a high severity level with high confidentiality impact but limited integrity and no availability impact.

Impact

An attacker who obtains a project file can attempt offline attacks against the unsalted SHA-256 password hash to recover the project password. Successful recovery compromises confidentiality of the project password, potentially exposing sensitive project data. Integrity impact is limited, and availability is unaffected. There are no known active exploits in the wild.

Summary

LOGO! Soft Comfort versions before V9 store project passwords as unsalted SHA-256 hashes. Because the hashes are unsalted, attackers with access to project files can conduct efficient offline dictionary or brute-force attacks to recover the original passwords. This vulnerability is identified as CWE-759 (Use of a One-Way Hash without a Salt). The CVSS 3.1 vector is AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N, reflecting local attack vector with low attack complexity and no privileges or user interaction required, resulting in high confidentiality impact.

CWE-759Use of a One-Way Hash without a Salt (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product does not also use a salt as part of the input.
Architecture and Design
Use an adaptive hash function that can be configured to change the amount of computational effort needed to compute the hash, such as the number of iterations ("stretching") or the amount of memory required. Some hash functions perform salting automatically.
Architecture and Design
If a technique that requires extra computational effort can not be implemented, then for each password that is processed, generate a new random salt using a strong random number generator with unpredictable seeds. Add the salt to the plaintext password before hashing it. When storing the hash, also store the salt.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
When using industry-approved techniques, use them correctly. Don't cut corners by skipping resource-intensive steps (CWE-325). These steps are often essential for preventing common attacks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Aug 2026, 19:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-759

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats