CVE-2026-113620

CRITICALPre-NVD 9.89.8
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 9.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2026-10-20. A secondary CVSS source baseline 9.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 3 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-104989 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 9.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.

The CVE record's CNA (Eclipse Foundation) lists Eclipse Foundation Eclipse ioFog versions 3.8.0 up to and including 3.9.1 as affected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.

In Eclipse ioFog Controller versions 3.8.0 through 3.9.1, operator WebSocket upgrades on the exec and log routes do not verify the bearer JWT. The payload is decoded and its groups or roles are used as RBAC subjects. A self-minted token whose groups contain admin matches the built-in admin role, with no account and no RoleBinding. The attacker can open an exec or log session for a microservice or fog whose UUID they already know. HTTP routes are not affected: they verify the token before RBAC. Agent WebSockets verify the fog token and are not affected.

CVSS v3
9.8
EG Score
9.8CRITICALhigh confidence
EG Risk
59
EG Risk 59/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity98% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.3% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.
EPSS PROB
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
20th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 20, 2026

Last Modified

October 20, 2026

Advisory Details (4)

Auto-updated Oct 22, 2026
No fix on record yet.
Web page

[Eclipse ioFog™] WebSocket RBAC trusts unverified JWT payload: forged token grants admin exec/logs access (#1270) · Issues · Eclipse Projects Security / vulnerability-reports · GitLab

https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/vulnerability-reports/-/work_items/1270
Web page

[Eclipse ioFog™] WebSocket exec/log routes authorize on an unverified JWT payload, giving anonymous clients interactive exec into any microservice (#1269) · Issues · Eclipse Projects Security / vulnerability-reports · GitLab

https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/vulnerability-reports/-/work_items/1269
Web page

[Eclipse ioFog™] Operator WebSocket upgrades never verify the JWT signature: a forged token with groups:["admin"] opens exec/log sessions on any microservice or fog (#1267) · Issues · Eclipse Projects Security / vulnerability-reports · GitLab

https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/vulnerability-reports/-/work_items/1267
Web page

Eclipse ioFog operator WebSocket accepts an unverified JWT (#468) · Issues · Eclipse Projects Security / cve-assignment · GitLab

https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/work_items/468

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-113620(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 20× in last 7d / 28× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  2. 2026-10-27 06:52 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-27 06:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  4. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  5. 2026-10-26 02:24 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-26 02:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  7. 2026-10-25 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  8. 2026-10-25 14:51 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-25 01:15 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-25 01:15 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  11. 2026-10-24 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  12. 2026-10-24 00:06 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-24 00:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  14. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  15. 2026-10-22 22:57 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-22 22:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  17. 2026-10-22 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  18. 2026-10-21 21:48 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-21 21:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  20. 2026-10-21 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  21. 2026-10-20 20:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  22. 2026-10-20 16:26 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-20 16:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  24. 2026-10-20 15:50 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-20 15:49 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-26cx-x379-5j5c · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
Show 3 more
  1. 2026-10-20 13:26 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-20 12:38 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 9.8 CRITICAL
  3. 2026-10-20 12:36 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-113620?
CVE-2026-113620 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 20, 2026. In Eclipse ioFog Controller versions 3.8.0 through 3.9.1, operator WebSocket upgrades on the exec and log routes do not verify the bearer JWT. The payload is decoded and its groups or roles are used as RBAC subjects. A self-minted token whose groups contain admin matches the built-in admin role,…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-113620 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-113620 was published on October 20, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 20, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-113620 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-113620 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (20th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-113620?
CVE-2026-113620 has a CVSS base score of 9.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-113620?
No fix for CVE-2026-113620 is confirmed yet. Until one is published, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation — for example, keep it off the internet or limit it to trusted networks — and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix. The CVE record's CNA (Eclipse Foundation) lists Eclipse Foundation Eclipse ioFog versions 3.8.0 up to and including 3.9.1 as affected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-113620 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-113620

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-113620?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.