VulnerabilityPublished 5 Mar 2026Updated 17 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30795: RustDesk Client · Cleartext Transmission

Affects RustDesk ClientSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 1.4.6 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.6

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

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

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: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Mar 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

Upgrade github/rustdesk/rustdesk-client to 1.4.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
rustdesk-clientRustDesk Client	Affected <=1.4.5	Fixed in–
crates.iogithub/rustdesk/rustdesk-client`pkg:cargo/github/rustdesk/rustdesk-client`Other threats	Affected <1.4.6	Fixed in 1.4.6
GitHubrustdesk-client`pkg:github/rustdesk-client`Other threats	Affected <=1.4.5	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 this vulnerability, organizations should first verify if they are using RustDesk Client versions up to 1.4.5 and plan immediate upgrades once a patched version is released. If you cannot patch yet, network-level protections should be enforced, such as deploying VPNs or encrypted tunnels (e.g., TLS) to secure all RustDesk traffic and prevent sniffing. Network segmentation and strict firewall rules can limit exposure of heartbeat synchronization traffic to trusted segments only. Monitoring network traffic for unencrypted sensitive data transmissions can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Additionally, consider disabling or restricting the use of preset address book passwords or heartbeat synchronization features if feasible. Educating users about the risks of using outdated clients and enforcing strict endpoint security policies will further reduce risk. Vendors should be urged to release patches promptly and implement encryption for all sensitive communications in future releases.

Description

Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information vulnerability in rustdesk-client RustDesk Client rustdesk-client on Windows, MacOS, Linux, iOS, Android (Heartbeat sync loop modules) allows Sniffing Attacks. This vulnerability is associated with program files src/hbbs_http/sync.Rs and program routines Heartbeat JSON payload construction (preset-address-book-password). This issue affects RustDesk Client: through 1.4.5.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the compromise of sensitive credentials transmitted in cleartext, which can lead to unauthorized access to remote desktop sessions or internal networks. Organizations relying on RustDesk Client for remote management or collaboration risk exposure of address book passwords, potentially allowing attackers to impersonate legitimate users or pivot within the network. This can result in data breaches, lateral movement, and further exploitation of internal systems. Since the vulnerability affects multiple platforms, the scope is broad, impacting enterprises with diverse device ecosystems. The lack of required authentication or user interaction increases the likelihood of successful exploitation. Confidentiality is severely impacted, while integrity and availability are less directly affected. The absence of encryption in heartbeat sync communications undermines trust in the client’s security posture and may lead to regulatory compliance issues where sensitive data protection is mandated.

CWE-319Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.
Architecture and Design
Before transmitting, encrypt the data using reliable, confidentiality-protecting cryptographic protocols.
Implementation
When using web applications with SSL, use SSL for the entire session from login to logout, not just for the initial login page.
Implementation
When designing hardware platforms, ensure that approved encryption algorithms (such as those recommended by NIST) protect paths from security critical data to trusted user applications.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Harvesting Information via API Event Monitoring (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content (opens in a new tab)
Sniff Application Code (opens in a new tab)
Interception (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 17 Mar 2026, 18:22 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-319

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats