VulnerabilityPublished 26 Feb 2026Updated 5 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-25851: chargemap.com · Missing Authentication

Affects chargemap.comSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.4Critical

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% 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 26 Feb 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 29 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
Chargemapchargemap.com	Affected =All versions	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-25851, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Immediately restrict access to the OCPP WebSocket endpoints by implementing strong authentication mechanisms, such as mutual TLS authentication or token-based authentication, to ensure only authorized charging stations can connect. 2) Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to limit WebSocket endpoint exposure to trusted networks and devices only. 3) Monitor WebSocket connections for anomalous behavior, such as unexpected station identifiers or unusual command patterns, using intrusion detection systems tailored for OCPP traffic. 4) Validate and sanitize all commands and data received from charging stations to prevent injection or manipulation attacks. 5) Coordinate with Chargemap for timely patches or updates once available and apply them promptly. 6) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on the charging infrastructure communication channels. 7) Maintain detailed logging and audit trails of OCPP interactions to support incident response and forensic analysis. 8) Educate operational staff about the risks of unauthorized access and establish incident response plans specific to charging infrastructure compromise.

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-2026-25851 on organizations worldwide is substantial, particularly for those operating or managing electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure using Chargemap's platform. Unauthorized access to charging stations can lead to several severe consequences: attackers could manipulate charging sessions, causing financial losses or service disruptions; they could escalate privileges to gain broader control over the charging network; and they could corrupt or falsify data reported to backend systems, undermining operational monitoring, billing accuracy, and regulatory compliance. This could also erode customer trust and damage brand reputation. In critical infrastructure contexts, such as public transportation hubs or commercial fleets, disruption or manipulation of charging services could have cascading effects on mobility and energy management. The lack of authentication means the attack surface is broad, and exploitation can be automated and performed remotely without user interaction, increasing the likelihood of attacks once the vulnerability is widely known. Although no exploits are currently reported, the criticality and ease of exploitation make this a high-risk threat that demands immediate attention.

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 6 Mar 2026, 20:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats