VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-1632: RISS SRL MOMA Seismic Station · Missing Authentication

Affects RISS SRL MOMA Seismic StationSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
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: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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 3 Feb 2026
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
RISS SRLMOMA Seismic Station	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, restrict network access to the MOMA Seismic Station management interface by placing devices behind firewalls or within isolated network segments accessible only to authorized personnel. Employ VPNs or secure tunnels for remote management to ensure authentication and encryption. Monitor network traffic for unusual access patterns or unauthorized configuration changes using intrusion detection systems tailored to industrial control systems. Where possible, disable the web management interface if not required or replace it with a more secure management method. Engage with RISS SRL for updates or firmware patches and plan for timely deployment once available. Additionally, conduct regular audits of device configurations and access logs to detect potential exploitation attempts. Establish incident response procedures specific to these devices to quickly mitigate any compromise. Training for operational staff on the risks and detection of unauthorized access is also recommended.

Description

CVE-2026-1632 is a critical vulnerability in RISS SRL's MOMA Seismic Station (version 2.4.2520 and earlier) where the web management interface lacks authentication. This allows unauthenticated attackers to access the device's configuration, extract sensitive data, or remotely reset the device. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.1, indicating high severity with network attack vector, no privileges or user interaction required, and impacts confidentiality and integrity. Although no known exploits are currently reported in the wild, the exposure of critical infrastructure devices like seismic stations poses significant risks. European organizations operating these devices could face operational disruptions and data compromise. Mitigations include network segmentation, restricting access to the management interface, deploying compensating controls such as VPNs or firewalls, and monitoring for unauthorized access. Countries with active seismic monitoring infrastructure and critical geological research facilities, such as Italy, Germany, France, and Spain, are most likely to be affected.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity and confidentiality of seismic monitoring data and the operational availability of seismic stations. Unauthorized modification of device configurations could lead to inaccurate seismic readings or data loss, potentially compromising earthquake detection and early warning systems. This could have downstream effects on public safety, scientific research, and infrastructure resilience. The ability to remotely reset devices without authentication could cause denial of service conditions, disrupting continuous monitoring. Organizations involved in geological research, civil protection agencies, and infrastructure monitoring in Europe rely on accurate seismic data; thus, exploitation could undermine trust in these systems and delay critical response actions. Furthermore, the exposure of sensitive seismic data could have national security implications if adversaries gain insight into critical infrastructure monitoring capabilities. The impact is amplified in countries with active seismic zones and advanced seismic monitoring networks, where these devices are more likely deployed.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (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 Feb 2026, 11:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats