VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-1068: Lenovo FileZ · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects Lenovo FileZSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium : upgrade to 10.12.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.08% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.12.3.0, 11.1.0.35

CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol 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 proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Mar 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 30 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.
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.

What to do

Upgrade FileZ to 10.12.3.0; FileZ to 11.1.0.35.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
LenovoFileZ	Affected <10.12.3.0	Fixed in 10.12.3.0
LenovoFileZ	Affected <11.1.0.35	Fixed in 11.1.0.35

AI-suggested

2) Employ network segmentation and enforce strict access controls to limit the ability of attackers to intercept traffic, especially on wireless or public networks. 3) Use VPNs or encrypted tunnels to protect data in transit beyond the application’s own TLS layer, adding an additional encryption layer. 4) Conduct network traffic analysis and intrusion detection to identify unusual interception or man-in-the-middle activity. 5) Educate users about the risks of using Lenovo FileZ over untrusted networks and encourage use only on secure, trusted connections. 6) Consider deploying endpoint security solutions that can detect anomalous certificate validation behavior or network interception attempts. 7) If feasible, temporarily restrict Lenovo FileZ usage in high-risk environments until a patch is available. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level protections and proactive monitoring tailored to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

CVE-2026-1068 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Lenovo FileZ caused by improper certificate validation (CWE-295). This flaw allows an attacker capable of intercepting network traffic to access sensitive user data by exploiting the application's failure to correctly verify TLS/SSL certificates. The vulnerability does not require user interaction or authentication but does require the attacker to have network access to intercept communications. Although no known exploits are currently active in the wild, the risk lies primarily in man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks that compromise confidentiality. Lenovo has not yet provided patches for affected versions. Countries with significant Lenovo FileZ usage and high-value targets for espionage or cybercrime are most at risk. Due to the medium CVSS score and attack vector, this vulnerability warrants prompt attention but is not critical at this time.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-1068 is the potential exposure of sensitive user data transmitted by Lenovo FileZ due to man-in-the-middle attacks. Organizations relying on Lenovo FileZ for file management or transfer could face confidentiality breaches, risking leakage of proprietary, personal, or sensitive information. This could lead to data theft, espionage, or further network compromise if attackers leverage intercepted data. The vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability directly but undermines trust in secure communications. Since exploitation requires network interception capabilities, environments with unsecured or poorly segmented networks are at higher risk. The lack of authentication or user interaction requirements increases the attack surface. Although no active exploits are known, the vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against organizations with valuable data or in high-risk sectors such as government, finance, or critical infrastructure. The medium severity reflects a significant but not catastrophic risk, emphasizing the need for timely remediation and network security controls.

Summary

CVE-2026-1068 identifies a vulnerability in Lenovo FileZ stemming from improper certificate validation, classified under CWE-295. The core issue is that the application fails to adequately verify the authenticity of TLS/SSL certificates during network communications. This improper validation can be exploited by an attacker positioned to intercept network traffic, such as on unsecured Wi-Fi or compromised network infrastructure, enabling a man-in-the-middle attack. By exploiting this flaw, the attacker can decrypt or manipulate sensitive user data transmitted by the application, compromising confidentiality. The vulnerability does not require any user interaction or authentication, increasing its potential risk in environments where network interception is feasible. The CVSS 4.0 vector indicates an attack vector of adjacent network (AV:A), low attack complexity (AC:L), and partial attack type (AT:P), with no privileges or user interaction needed, and high impact on confidentiality (VC:H). No known exploits are currently reported in the wild, and Lenovo has not released patches or mitigations yet. The affected product version is listed as '0', which may indicate an early or initial release version. This vulnerability highlights the importance of robust certificate validation to prevent interception and data leakage in networked applications.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

filez.com/securityPolicy (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Mar 2026, 02:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats