VulnerabilityPublished 18 Feb 2026Updated 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-2676: GoogTech sms-ssm · Improper Authorization

Affects GoogTech sms-ssmSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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
GoogTechsms-ssm	Affected =e8534c766fd13f5f94c01dab475d75f286918a8d	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately audit and tighten authorization controls within their deployments of GoogTech sms-ssm, focusing on the API Interface and LoginInterceptor components. Since no official patches are currently disclosed, implement network-level restrictions such as IP whitelisting and segmentation to limit access to the vulnerable API endpoints. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block unauthorized access attempts targeting the preHandle function. Monitor logs for unusual access patterns or privilege escalations related to sms-ssm API calls. Engage with the vendor to obtain timely updates or patches and test them in staging environments before deployment. Consider deploying multi-factor authentication and strict role-based access controls to reduce the impact of potential exploitation. Regularly review and update incident response plans to address potential exploitation scenarios. Finally, maintain awareness of public exploit developments and threat intelligence feeds for emerging attack techniques targeting this vulnerability.

Description

A weakness has been identified in GoogTech sms-ssm up to e8534c766fd13f5f94c01dab475d75f286918a8d. Affected by this issue is the function preHandle of the file LoginInterceptor.java of the component API Interface. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed.

Impact

The improper authorization vulnerability in GoogTech sms-ssm can lead to unauthorized access to API functions, potentially allowing attackers to execute actions beyond their privileges. This can result in partial disclosure of sensitive information, unauthorized modification of data, or disruption of service availability. Organizations relying on sms-ssm for critical messaging or API services may face risks of data leakage, service manipulation, or escalation of privileges within their infrastructure. The medium severity rating indicates a moderate risk, but the ease of remote exploitation without user interaction increases the threat surface. If exploited, attackers could compromise backend systems, disrupt business operations, or gain footholds for further attacks. The continuous delivery model of the product complicates patch management, potentially prolonging exposure. Overall, the vulnerability poses a tangible risk to confidentiality, integrity, and availability of affected systems, especially in environments with sensitive data or critical communications.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…