VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jun 2026Updated 10 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-45749: Termix · Use of Single-factor Authentication

Affects TermixSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 2.3.2 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.3.2

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within 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 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

Upgrade Termix and termix-ssh/Termix to 2.3.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Termix-SSHTermix	Affected <2.3.2	Fixed in 2.3.2
GitHubtermix-ssh/Termix`pkg:github/termix-ssh/Termix`Other threats	Affected <2.3.2	Fixed in 2.3.2

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Termix to version 2.3.2 or later, where this vulnerability is patched. Until then, be aware that MFA-critical operations require only a password and consider additional compensating controls. Patch status is not explicitly stated but the issue is fixed in version 2.3.2, so updating to this version or newer is recommended.

Description

Termix is a web-based server management platform with SSH terminal, tunneling, and file editing capabilities. The `POST /users/totp/disable` and `POST /users/totp/backup-codes` endpoints in Termix prior to version 2.3.2 accept the account password as a sole authentication factor for MFA-critical operations. An attacker who obtains a user's password (phishing, credential stuffing, the passwordHash leak in GHSA-xxxx) can disable TOTP entirely or regenerate backup codes, without ever possessing the TOTP device or knowing a valid TOTP code. This renders two-factor authentication ineffective. Version 2.3.2 patches the issue.

CWE-308Use of Single-factor Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses an authentication algorithm that uses a single factor (e.g., a password) in a security context that should require more than one factor.
Architecture and Design
Use multiple independent authentication schemes, which ensures that -- if one of the methods is compromised -- the system itself is still likely safe from compromise. For this reason, if multiple schemes are possible, they should be implemented and required -- especially if they are easy to use.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Dictionary-based Password Attack (opens in a new tab)
Password Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Rainbow Table Password Cracking (opens in a new tab)
Remote Services with Stolen Credentials (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 13 Jun 2026, 09:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-308

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats