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).
- •CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: No code on recordExposed 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 (VULSec Labs) lists rustdesk-client RustDesk Client versions up to and including 1.4.8 as affected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information, Insufficiently Protected Credentials vulnerability in rustdesk-client RustDesk Client rustdesk-client on Windows, MacOS, Linux, iOS, Android (Address book sync, Heartbeat sync loop modules) allows Sniffing Attacks.
The client places the preset address-book password verbatim into the heartbeat sync JSON body (src/hbbs_http/sync.rs). Over an intact HTTPS session it is not exposed in transit, but it is a reusable shared secret rather than a zero-knowledge proof, so it is recovered by any party that becomes the API endpoint - under the re-homed/rogue API server (CVE-2026-30797) - and the leaked credential then authorizes the server-side address book.
This vulnerability is associated with program files src/hbbs_http/sync.rs and program routines heartbeat sync body builder (emits preset-address-book-password).
This issue affects RustDesk Client: through 1.4.8.
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 public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)14 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 partial (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