VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-50126: Hozard alarm system · Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.09% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 11 Jan 2024
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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on physical security controls to limit unauthorized proximity to RFID tags, such as enforcing strict access controls and monitoring areas where tags are used or stored. Organizations should consider replacing or upgrading the Hozard alarm system to versions or alternative products that implement encrypted RFID communication. If replacement is not immediately feasible, layering security controls—such as adding secondary authentication factors (PIN codes, biometric verification) to disarm the system—can reduce risk. Regular audits and inventories of RFID tags should be conducted to detect unauthorized clones. Additionally, organizations should engage with the vendor or security community to track for patches or firmware updates that address this vulnerability. Implementing RFID shielding or protective cases to prevent unauthorized scanning can also help. Finally, raising user awareness about the risk of physical proximity attacks and encouraging secure handling of RFID tags is important.

Description

Missing encryption in the RFID tags of the Hozard alarm system (Alarmsysteem) v1.0 allow attackers to create a cloned tag via brief physical proximity to one of the original tags, which results in an attacker being able to bring the alarm system to a disarmed state.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on the Hozard alarm system for physical security, this vulnerability poses a significant risk of unauthorized access. An attacker could bypass alarm triggers by cloning RFID tags, potentially facilitating theft, espionage, or sabotage. This undermines trust in physical security controls and could lead to financial losses, data breaches if physical access leads to IT infrastructure compromise, or harm to personnel. Organizations with high-security requirements, such as government buildings, critical infrastructure, financial institutions, and healthcare facilities, are particularly at risk. The ease of exploitation—requiring only brief physical proximity to an original tag—means that insiders or visitors could potentially clone tags without detection. The lack of encryption also suggests that any RFID tags in use are vulnerable, increasing the attack surface. Although no exploits are currently known in the wild, the vulnerability's nature makes it a likely target for attackers seeking low-effort physical access bypasses.

CWE-311Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements
Clearly specify which data or resources are valuable enough that they should be protected by encryption. Require that any transmission or storage of this data/resource should use well-vetted encryption algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that encryption is properly integrated into the system design, including but not necessarily limited to: Encryption that is needed to store or transmit private data of the users of the system; Encryption that is needed to protect the system itself from unauthorized disclosure or tampering
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V6.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Sniffing Attacks (opens in a new tab)
Sniffing Network Traffic (opens in a new tab)
Lifting Sensitive Data Embedded in Cache (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

secura.com/services/iot/consumer-products/security-concerns-in-popular-smart-home-devices (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 09:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-311

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats