“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.
This critical-severity CVE scores 9.3 under NVD CVSS v3. EPSS exploit probability: 0.7% (51st percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.
Also known asEUVD-2026-32276 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-74x7-73gr-c646 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (CERT.PL) lists Slican IPx versions before 6.61.0040; Slican CCT-1668 versions before 6.56.0430; Slican MAC-6400 versions before 6.56.0430 as affected, and 2 more products. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
Slican telephone exchanges allow administrative protocol authentication bypass. An attacker can bypass the need to enter login credentials by executing the appropriate command.
This issue was fixed in versions below:
The issue STILL EXISTS in End-Of-Life telephone exchanges in versions 4.xx and below:
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.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
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
May 27, 2026
October 26, 2026
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
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.
Showing the most recent 99 of 445 refreshes on record for this CVE.
A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 1 repeat row among the latest 100 is merged into the row it repeats. The 346 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-35087
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.