VulnerabilityPublished 25 Feb 2026Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26717: richie · Timing Side Channel

Affects richieSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 25 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
GitHubopenfun/richie`pkg:github/openfun/richie`Other threats	Affected *	Fixed in–

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-2026-26717, organizations should immediately review and update the HMAC signature verification implementation in OpenFUN Richie LMS. Specifically, replace the non-constant time equality operator (==) with a constant-time comparison function such as hmac.compare_digest() in Python, which prevents timing side-channel leaks. If an official patch is released, apply it promptly. In the absence of patches, consider implementing network-level mitigations such as rate limiting and anomaly detection to identify suspicious authentication attempts that may indicate timing attack probing. Additionally, monitor LMS logs for unusual patterns of failed signature verifications or repeated requests from the same source. Educate developers and security teams about the risks of timing attacks and enforce secure coding practices for cryptographic operations. Finally, conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on authentication mechanisms to detect similar vulnerabilities proactively.

Description

An issue in OpenFUN Richie (LMS) in src/richie/apps/courses/api.py. The application used the non-constant time == operator for HMAC signature verification in the sync_course_run_from_request function. This allows remote attackers to forge valid signatures and bypass authentication by measuring response time discrepancies

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-26717 is the potential for remote attackers to bypass authentication by forging valid HMAC signatures through timing analysis. This can lead to unauthorized access to LMS functions related to course synchronization, potentially allowing attackers to modify course data, inject malicious content, or disrupt educational workflows. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system availability, the integrity and confidentiality of course-related data and user information are at risk. Organizations relying on OpenFUN Richie LMS may face data integrity issues, unauthorized data exposure, and potential reputational damage if attackers exploit this flaw. The medium severity score reflects that exploitation requires network access and some effort to measure timing differences accurately, but no authentication or user interaction is needed, broadening the attack surface. Educational institutions and LMS administrators must consider the risk of unauthorized course modifications and potential downstream impacts on students and staff. The absence of known exploits suggests limited current exploitation but does not preclude future attacks, especially as timing attack techniques become more accessible.

CWE-208Observable Timing Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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 5 Mar 2026, 10:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-208

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats