VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-45327: DatanoiseTV tinyice · Missing Authentication

Affects DatanoiseTV tinyiceSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 2.5.0 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.5.0, 0.8.95

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Jun 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 tinyice to 2.5.0; datanoisetv/tinyice to 2.5.0 or 0.8.95.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
DatanoiseTVtinyice	Affected >=0.8.95 <2.5.0	Fixed in 2.5.0
GitHubdatanoisetv/tinyice`pkg:github/datanoisetv/tinyice`Other threats	Affected <0.8.95 >=0.8.95 <2.5.0	Fixed in 0.8.95 2.5.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Version 2.5.0 of tinyice fixes this vulnerability by enforcing authentication on the WebRTC ingest endpoint using HTTP Basic auth or a password query parameter validated with bcrypt, implementing brute-force IP rate limiting, and rejecting requests for disabled mounts. It also strengthens security on the POST /admin/golive/chunk endpoint by verifying per-mount access and CSRF tokens. Users should upgrade to version 2.5.0 or later to remediate this issue. Patch status is not explicitly confirmed by a vendor advisory, so verify with DatanoiseTV's official channels for the latest remediation guidance.

Description

TinyIce is a streaming server for audio and video. In versions 0.8.95 through 2.4.1, missing authentication on WebRTC ingest endpoint allows unauthenticated stream injection. Version 2.5.0 fixes the issue by requiring either HTTP Basic auth or a `?password=` query parameter, comparing the supplied password against the per-mount source password (or the `default_source_password` fallback) using bcrypt, hooking into the existing brute-force IP rate-limiter (5 failed attempts per IP within 15 minutes triggers a lockout), and rejecting requests for mounts in `disabled_mounts`. The same release also tightens an adjacent endpoint, `POST /admin/golive/chunk`, which previously required session authentication but did not verify the session user's per-mount access nor check the CSRF token.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthenticated attackers to inject unauthorized streams into the tinyice server via the WebRTC ingest endpoint, potentially disrupting legitimate streaming content (integrity impact) and causing limited denial of service (availability impact). There is no confidentiality impact. The POST /admin/golive/chunk endpoint could previously be abused due to insufficient session and CSRF validation, increasing risk of unauthorized administrative actions. No known exploits are reported in the wild.

Summary

TinyIce versions 0.8.95 through 2.4.1 have a missing authentication vulnerability (CWE-306) on the WebRTC ingest endpoint, permitting unauthenticated stream injection. The issue is resolved in version 2.5.0 by requiring HTTP Basic authentication or a password query parameter validated with bcrypt against configured source passwords. The fix also includes brute-force IP rate limiting and rejecting requests for disabled mounts. Furthermore, the POST /admin/golive/chunk endpoint's security is enhanced by verifying session user's per-mount access and CSRF tokens. This vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.2 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L), reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges or user interaction needed, no confidentiality impact, high integrity impact, and low availability impact.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (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 Jun 2026, 17:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats