VulnerabilityPublished 5 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-22552: epower.ie · Missing Authentication

Affects epower.ieSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.4Critical

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

EPSS: 0.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 60% 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:L

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

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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ePowerepower.ie	Affected =All versions	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

In the absence of an official patch, organizations should implement several specific mitigations to reduce risk: 1) Restrict network access to the OCPP WebSocket endpoints by implementing strict firewall rules and network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted management networks only. 2) Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) configured to detect anomalous WebSocket connections or unusual OCPP command patterns. 3) Enforce strong authentication and authorization at network boundaries, such as VPNs or zero-trust network access solutions, to ensure only authorized entities can reach the charging station endpoints. 4) Monitor logs and network traffic for signs of unauthorized connections or station impersonation attempts, including unexpected station identifiers or command sequences. 5) Engage with the vendor ePower for updates and patches, and plan for rapid deployment once available. 6) Consider implementing additional application-layer authentication or mutual TLS if supported by the infrastructure to add a layer of verification. 7) Educate operational teams about the risks and signs of exploitation to enable timely incident response. These targeted controls go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level restrictions, monitoring, and compensating controls tailored to the unique characteristics of OCPP and WebSocket communications.

Description

WebSocket endpoints lack proper authentication mechanisms, enabling attackers to perform unauthorized station impersonation and manipulate data sent to the backend. An unauthenticated attacker can connect to the OCPP WebSocket endpoint using a known or discovered charging station identifier, then issue or receive OCPP commands as a legitimate charger. Given that no authentication is required, this can lead to privilege escalation, unauthorized control of charging infrastructure, and corruption of charging network data reported to the backend.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-22552 is significant for organizations operating or managing EV charging infrastructure using the ePower epower.ie platform. Unauthorized control over charging stations can lead to multiple adverse outcomes: attackers could manipulate charging sessions to cause financial losses, disrupt service availability, or damage hardware by issuing improper commands. Data integrity is at risk as attackers can corrupt or falsify charging data sent to backend systems, undermining billing accuracy and operational analytics. Confidentiality is also compromised since attackers can intercept or inject OCPP messages, potentially exposing sensitive operational details. The disruption of charging infrastructure could have cascading effects on electric vehicle users, fleet operators, and energy providers, especially in regions heavily reliant on EV technology. Given the criticality of the vulnerability and the lack of authentication, the threat landscape includes both opportunistic attackers and sophisticated adversaries aiming to disrupt critical infrastructure. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate widespread impact, but the vulnerability remains a high-risk target for future attacks.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Functionality (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 13 Mar 2026, 19:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats