VulnerabilityPublished 20 Sep 2022Updated 28 May 2025

CVE-2020-36602: 576up005 HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;577HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;581up-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;586-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;588-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;606-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;BI-ACC-REPORT;CM-H-Shark-BD · Out-of-bounds Read and Write

Affects 576up005 HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;577HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;581up-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;586-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;588-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;606-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;BI-ACC-REPORT;CM-H-Shark-BDSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 20 Sep 2022
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 Oct 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n/a 576up005 HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;577HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;581up-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;586-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;588-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;606-HOTA-CM-H-Shark-BD;BI-ACC-REPORT;CM-H-Shark-BD	Affected 1.0.0.1 – 1.9.0.588 37 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the lack of official patches, European organizations should implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to affected headset devices. This includes secure storage, inventory management, and access logging. Network segmentation and limiting the use of vulnerable headset models in sensitive environments can reduce exposure. Organizations should monitor for firmware updates or advisories from vendors and apply patches promptly once available. Additionally, conducting regular device audits to identify and replace vulnerable firmware versions is recommended. Where possible, disable or restrict message interfaces that accept external inputs to the headset firmware to prevent injection of malformed messages. Employ endpoint detection mechanisms to identify anomalous device behavior that could indicate exploitation attempts. Training staff on the risks of physical device compromise and enforcing policies for device handling can further mitigate risk. Finally, consider alternative headset products with verified security postures if mitigation is not feasible.

Description

There is an out-of-bounds read and write vulnerability in some headset products. An unauthenticated attacker gets the device physically and crafts malformed message with specific parameter and sends the message to the affected products. Due to insufficient validation of message, which may be exploited to cause out-of-bounds read and write.

Impact

For European organizations using these specific headset products, the impact of CVE-2020-36602 could be significant, especially in environments where these devices handle sensitive communications or are integrated into secure workflows. The out-of-bounds read/write vulnerability could allow attackers with physical access to extract confidential information or alter device behavior, undermining trust in communication security. This is particularly critical in sectors such as government, defense, finance, and critical infrastructure, where headset devices may be used for secure voice communications. Although the attack requires physical access, the low complexity and no requirement for authentication or user interaction increase the risk in scenarios where devices are deployed in shared or less controlled environments. The compromise of headset integrity could also facilitate further attacks on connected systems if the headset firmware interfaces with other networked components. The absence of known exploits suggests limited active threat currently, but the vulnerability remains a latent risk that could be exploited if devices are lost, stolen, or accessed by malicious insiders.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20220826-01-outofboundread-en (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 07:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125, CWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats