VulnerabilityPublished 16 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-4251: CityData CityChat · Unprotected Storage of Credentials

Affects CityData CityChatSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 2.0 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.0Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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: 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.
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 30 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
CityDataCityChat	Affected 0.12.0 – 0.12.6 7 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations and users should restrict physical and local access to devices running CityChat, employing strong device-level security such as full-disk encryption, strong authentication, and screen locks. Monitoring for unauthorized local access attempts or suspicious activity on devices is advisable. Until a vendor patch is available, consider removing or limiting the use of CityChat on sensitive devices or environments. Developers and security teams should audit the app’s storage practices and avoid embedding sensitive credentials in application assets or files accessible on the device filesystem. Employ secure credential storage mechanisms such as Android Keystore or encrypted shared preferences. If possible, implement runtime credential retrieval from secure servers rather than static storage. Regularly update the app when patches become available and maintain communication with the vendor for remediation status. Incident response plans should include procedures for compromised device scenarios involving credential exposure.

Description

A vulnerability was determined in CityData CityChat up to 0.12.6 on Android. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file resources/assets/flutter_assets/assets/credentials.json of the component ai.citydata.citychat. Executing a manipulation can lead to unprotected storage of credentials. The attack requires local access. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential exposure of sensitive credentials stored within the CityChat application on Android devices. If an attacker gains local access to a device, they could extract these credentials and potentially use them to impersonate users, access backend services, or escalate privileges depending on the credential scope. This could lead to unauthorized access to user data or backend systems, compromising confidentiality. However, the requirement for local access and high complexity reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation. Organizations relying on CityChat for communication or data exchange may face risks of data leakage or unauthorized access if devices are lost, stolen, or compromised. The lack of vendor response and patches prolongs exposure. Overall, the impact is limited to affected devices and does not directly threaten network-wide availability or integrity but poses a confidentiality risk that could facilitate further attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities.

Summary

CVE-2026-4251 identifies a security vulnerability in the CityData CityChat Android application versions 0.12.0 through 0.12.6. The issue resides in the unprotected storage of credentials within the file resources/assets/flutter_assets/assets/credentials.json, part of the ai.citydata.citychat component. This file contains sensitive credential information that is not adequately secured, allowing an attacker with local access to the device to extract these credentials. The attack complexity is high, indicating that exploitation requires significant effort, technical skill, or specific conditions. No user interaction is required, but the attacker must have local access, such as physical device access or through a compromised local account. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality, integrity, or availability broadly beyond the credential exposure. The vendor was notified but has not issued a patch or response, and no known exploits have been observed in the wild. The CVSS 4.0 vector reflects a low severity score (2.0), emphasizing the limited attack surface and difficulty of exploitation. The vulnerability highlights poor credential management practices within the app's codebase, specifically the insecure storage of sensitive data in application assets accessible on the device filesystem.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…