VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2026Updated 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25752: frangoteam FUXA · Missing Authorization

Affects frangoteam FUXASource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical : upgrade to 1.2.10 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.10

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: 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: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
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: 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 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 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 FUXA and frangoteam/FUXA to 1.2.10.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
frangoteamFUXA	Affected <1.2.10	Fixed in 1.2.10
GitHubfrangoteam/FUXA`pkg:github/frangoteam/FUXA`Other threats	Affected <1.2.10	Fixed in 1.2.10

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-25752, European organizations should immediately upgrade FUXA installations to version 1.2.10 or later, where the authorization bypass flaw is patched. Beyond patching, organizations should implement strict network segmentation to isolate SCADA/HMI systems from general IT networks and the internet, reducing exposure to remote attacks. Deploy WebSocket traffic monitoring and anomaly detection to identify unauthorized or suspicious commands targeting device tags or communication drivers. Enforce strong access controls and multi-factor authentication for all management interfaces, even if the vulnerability bypasses some controls, to limit attack surface. Regularly audit and review device tag configurations and communication driver statuses for unexpected changes. Employ intrusion detection and prevention systems tailored for industrial protocols to detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, maintain up-to-date incident response plans specific to ICS environments to quickly contain and remediate any compromise. Training staff on the risks associated with SCADA vulnerabilities and secure configuration best practices is also essential.

Description

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. An authorization bypass vulnerability in FUXA allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to modify device tags via WebSockets. Exploitation allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass role-based access controls and overwrite arbitrary device tags or disable communication drivers, exposing connected ICS/SCADA environments to follow-on actions. This may allow an attacker to manipulate physical processes and disconnected devices from the HMI. This affects FUXA through version 1.2.9. This issue has been patched in FUXA version 1.2.10.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-25752 on European organizations is substantial, especially those operating critical infrastructure such as energy, manufacturing, water treatment, and transportation sectors that utilize SCADA and HMI systems. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized modification of device tags or disabling of communication drivers, resulting in loss of control over physical processes. This can cause operational disruptions, safety hazards, equipment damage, and potential environmental harm. The integrity and availability of industrial control systems are directly threatened, increasing the risk of downtime and costly recovery efforts. Confidentiality is also impacted as attackers gain unauthorized access to system controls. Given the critical role of SCADA systems in European industrial environments, this vulnerability could facilitate sabotage, espionage, or ransomware attacks. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements heightens the threat, making it easier for remote attackers to exploit the vulnerability without insider access or social engineering. Consequently, the vulnerability poses a significant risk to the stability and security of European critical infrastructure.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 14 Feb 2026, 12:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats