VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-49439: Io.openremote:openremote manager: OpenRemote read-only asset users can write predicted datapoints

Affects io.openremote:openremote-managerSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.24.1 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.24.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 on 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 6 Jul 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 io.openremote:openremote-manager to 1.24.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenio.openremote:openremote-manager	Affected <1.24.1	Fixed in 1.24.1

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

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, restrict user permissions carefully and monitor access to the predicted datapoint write endpoint to prevent unauthorized writes.

Description

# Summary The predicted datapoint write endpoint allows users with only `read:assets` privileges to write predicted datapoints. The endpoint: ```text PUT /api/{realm}/asset/predicted/{assetId}/{attributeName} ``` accepts write requests from users lacking `write:assets`. The implementation appears to check `READ_ASSETS` while performing a write operation through: ```java assetPredictedDatapointService.updateValues(...) ``` # PoC A user was created with only: ```text read:assets ``` and without `write:assets`. The following request succeeded: ```http PUT /api/master/asset/predicted/4Fr8Pcp7iDjrEmoSUFolvT/temperature ``` Request body: ```json [{"x":1779199999001,"y":1337}] ``` Response: ```text HTTP/2 204 ``` Database verification confirmed the datapoint was written successfully: ```text entity_id: 4Fr8Pcp7iDjrEmoSUFolvT attribute_name: temperature value: 1337 ``` # Impact Users with read-only asset permissions can modify predicted datapoints for assets.

Impact

Users with read-only asset permissions can modify predicted datapoints, potentially leading to unauthorized data manipulation. The integrity of predicted datapoint data can be compromised, but confidentiality and availability are not impacted according to the provided data.

Summary

The OpenRemote Manager product contains an authorization flaw where the predicted datapoint write endpoint (/api/{realm}/asset/predicted/{assetId}/{attributeName}) incorrectly permits users with only 'read:assets' privileges to perform write operations. The implementation checks for read permissions instead of write permissions when updating predicted datapoints via the assetPredictedDatapointService.updateValues method. This allows unauthorized users to modify predicted datapoints, which should be restricted to users with 'write:assets' privileges. The vulnerability affects versions before 1.24.1.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 6 Jul 2026, 23:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats