CVE-2026-95860VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

node-opcua: Namespace-Level RBAC Fail-Open - Anonymous Write/Call Bypass via Unbound `DefaultRolePermissions

Affects node-opcuaSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-95860· Critical 9.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 2.180.0 as a priority.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 17:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	9.1

Patch: Available – fixed in 2.180.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 3 Nov 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 10 Nov 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 node-opcua and node-opcua-address-space and node-opcua-server to 2.180.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmnode-opcua	Affected >=2.42.0 <2.180.0	Fixed in 2.180.0
npmnode-opcua-address-space	Affected >=2.42.0 <2.180.0	Fixed in 2.180.0
npmnode-opcua-server	Affected >=2.42.0 <2.180.0	Fixed in 2.180.0

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available in node-opcua version 2.180.0 that corrects the authorization logic and ensures namespace default RolePermissions are properly enforced. Operators should upgrade to version 2.180.0 or later. Until patched, relying on namespace default permissions is insecure, and explicit per-node RolePermissions should be configured where possible. There are no vendor advisories indicating 'no action required' or that this is already mitigated without patching.

Description

A critical vulnerability in node-opcua allows unauthenticated (Anonymous) clients to write protected variables and call privileged methods on nodes lacking explicit per-node permissions. This occurs because the server incorrectly grants all permissions when the namespace default role permissions are unset or null, violating OPC UA's default-deny security model. The flaw arises from a fail-open authorization logic and a disconnect between configuration and runtime enforcement, causing namespace default permissions to be ignored. This affects node-opcua versions from 2.42.0 up to but not including 2.180.0. A fix is available in version 2.180.0.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can bypass intended access controls and perform write operations on protected variables and invoke privileged methods on any node lacking explicit per-node permissions. This leads to a complete compromise of confidentiality and integrity of the OPC UA server's data and operations. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.1 (critical), reflecting its high impact with network attack vector, no privileges required, and no user interaction needed.

Summary

The vulnerability in node-opcua stems from improper handling of namespace-level RolePermissions. According to OPC UA standards, nodes without explicit RolePermissions should inherit namespace DefaultRolePermissions, and if these permissions are not set, access should be denied by default. However, node-opcua's implementation returns full permissions (Read, Write, Call) when the RolePermissions are null, effectively granting anonymous clients unauthorized access. Additionally, the runtime enforcement path reads the DefaultRolePermissions from a UAVariable node that is null or absent, while the configuration API sets permissions on a private field that the enforcement path does not consult. This disconnect causes declared namespace default permissions to be silently ignored, enabling unauthorized write and call operations. The issue affects versions >=2.42.0 and <2.180.0 and is addressed in version 2.180.0.

CWE-1188Initialization of a Resource with an Insecure Default (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product initializes or sets a resource with a default that is intended to be changed by the product's installer, administrator, or maintainer, but the default is not secure.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.7.6 (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).
CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-636Not Failing Securely (Failing Open) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
When the product encounters an error condition or failure, its design requires it to fall back to a state that is less secure than other options that are available, such as selecting the weakest encryption algorithm or using the most permissive access control restrictions.
Architecture and Design
Subdivide and allocate resources and components so that a failure in one part does not affect the entire product.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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)
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 10 Nov 2026, 17:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1188, CWE-285, CWE-636 +1

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats