VulnerabilityPublished 16 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-4216: i-SENS SmartLog App · Hard-coded Credentials

Affects i-SENS SmartLog AppSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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: Local
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: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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 16 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 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
i-SENSSmartLog App	Affected 2.6.0 – 2.6.8 9 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations and users should: 1) Immediately restrict physical and local access to devices running the affected SmartLog app versions to trusted personnel only. 2) Monitor for any unusual Bluetooth pairing activity or unauthorized device connections. 3) Apply the vendor's future updates promptly once they remove or restrict the developer mode function. 4) Consider disabling Bluetooth on the device when not in use to reduce attack surface. 5) If possible, audit app permissions and configurations to detect and limit access to developer mode features. 6) Educate users and administrators about the risks of local access exploitation and enforce strict device handling policies. 7) For organizations, implement endpoint security controls that detect or prevent unauthorized local access or privilege escalation on Android devices running the app. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling local access, monitoring Bluetooth interactions, and preparing for vendor patches.

Description

A weakness has been identified in i-SENS SmartLog App up to 2.6.8 on Android. This affects an unknown function of the component air.SmartLog.android. This manipulation causes hard-coded credentials. The attack can only be executed locally. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor explains: "The function referenced in the report currently exists in our deployed system. It is related to a developer mode used during the configuration process for Bluetooth pairing between the blood glucose meter and the SmartLog application. This function is intended for configuration purposes related to device integration and testing. (...) [I]n a future application update, we plan to review measures to either remove the developer mode function or restrict access to it."

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential unauthorized local access to the Bluetooth pairing configuration between the blood glucose meter and the SmartLog app. This could allow an attacker with local access to manipulate device pairing, potentially intercept or alter sensitive health data, or disrupt device functionality. Given the medical context, unauthorized access or manipulation could affect patient data confidentiality and device reliability, posing risks to patient safety and privacy. However, the requirement for local access and limited privileges reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation. Organizations relying on the SmartLog app for patient monitoring or data collection may face risks of data integrity loss or unauthorized data exposure if devices are physically accessible to attackers. The vulnerability does not appear to allow remote exploitation, limiting its impact scope. Nevertheless, healthcare providers and patients using affected app versions should consider this a significant risk due to the sensitivity of health data and device operation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…