VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-22644: SICK Incoming Goods Suite · Use of GET Request Method With Sensitive Query Strings

Affects SICK Incoming Goods SuiteSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 15 Jan 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
SICK AGIncoming Goods Suite	Affected =all versions	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately review and modify their use of the Incoming Goods Suite to ensure authentication tokens are never transmitted via URL query parameters. Instead, tokens should be passed securely in HTTP headers or POST request bodies. Network monitoring should be enhanced to detect unusual access patterns or token reuse indicative of session hijacking. Access to server and proxy logs must be tightly controlled and regularly audited to prevent unauthorized access. If possible, implement short-lived tokens and enforce token expiration to limit the window of exploitation. Organizations should also engage with SICK AG to request patches or updated versions that address this design flaw. Additionally, consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious requests involving token leakage. User training on secure session handling and awareness of phishing or social engineering attempts can further reduce risk.

Description

Certain requests pass the authentication token in the URL as string query parameter, making it vulnerable to theft through server logs, proxy logs and Referer headers, which could allow an attacker to hijack the user's session and gain unauthorized access.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in manufacturing, logistics, and supply chain management using SICK AG's Incoming Goods Suite, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized access to sensitive operational systems. Attackers who obtain authentication tokens can hijack sessions, potentially leading to data exposure or manipulation of incoming goods records. Although the vulnerability does not directly impact system integrity or availability, unauthorized access could facilitate further attacks or data leakage. The exposure of tokens in URLs also increases the risk of insider threats or accidental leaks through shared logs. Given the critical role of supply chain systems in European industry, exploitation could disrupt operations or compromise sensitive business information. The lack of required privileges or user interaction lowers the barrier for attackers, increasing the threat landscape for affected organizations.

CWE-598Use of HTTP Request With Sensitive Query String (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The web application uses an HTTP method to process a request, but the request includes sensitive information in the query string.
Implementation
When sending sensitive information, only include it in the request body or request headers instead of the query string. This may require avoiding use of GET requests.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Web Service Security (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V3.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
V13.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.4 (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 15 Jan 2026, 13:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-598

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats