CVE-2026-61810

MEDIUMPre-NVD 6.06.0
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

This medium-severity CVE scores 6.0 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.1% (3rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source

Also known asEUVD-2026-123137 (ENISA EUVD)Source: ENISA EUVD

6.0EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 6.0Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

The CVE record names the fixed release — apply it.

libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications. In version 1.4.0, both the FINISH request (Table 80) and the FINISH_RSP response (Table 81) gained two new fields, OpaqueDataLength and OpaqueData, placed before the trailing signed/authenticated field. The transcript definitions used to compute and verify the FINISH signature, the FINISH HMAC (RequesterVerifyData), and the FINISH_RSP HMAC (ResponderVerifyData) were not updated and still terminate with a step of the form. Per DSP0274, the "SPDM Header Fields" are only the four header bytes (SPDMVersion, RequestResponseCode, Param1, Param2). A literal reading therefore excludes OpaqueDataLength and OpaqueData, even though those fields are transmitted before the trailing signature/HMAC field. Because the signature/HMAC must cover every field transmitted before it to "protect the entire handshake against manipulation by an active attacker," an active attacker could otherwise modify the opaque data in flight without invalidating the signature or HMAC. This issue has been patched in version 1.4.1.

CVSS
6.0
EG Score
6.0MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
27
EG Risk 27/100

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)
Severity60% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 6.0 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.1% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.1%
EPSS %ILE
3rd
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 (6.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
6.0 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
EG Likelihood
0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

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

The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

November 11, 2026

Last Modified

November 12, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Nov 11, 2026
Fix named in the CVE record. Sources: github.
Web page

Question about FINISH signature transcript in SPDM 1.4 vs libspdm implementation · Issue #3633 · DMTF/libspdm · GitHub

https://github.com/DMTF/libspdm/issues/3633
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

DMTF-2026-0003: SPDM (DSP0274) FINISH transcript under-specifies the new 1.4 OpaqueData fields · Advisory · DMTF/libspdm · GitHub

https://github.com/DMTF/libspdm/security/advisories/GHSA-chjj-xvqx-c8w4

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 4× in last 7d / 4× 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 its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS → 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). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-12 22:31 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  2. 2026-11-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 3rd percentile
  3. 2026-11-11 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 3rd percentile
  4. 2026-11-11 05:28 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  5. 2026-11-11 05:05 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-123137 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  6. 2026-11-11 04:21 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 6.0 MEDIUM
  7. 2026-11-11 04:19 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-61810?
CVE-2026-61810 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 11, 2026. libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications. In version 1.4.0, both the FINISH request (Table 80) and the FINISH_RSP response (Table 81) gained two new fields, OpaqueDataLength and OpaqueData, placed before the trailing signed/authenticated field. The transcript…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-61810 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-61810 was published on November 11, 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 November 12, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-61810 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-61810 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (3rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-61810?
CVE-2026-61810 has a CVSS base score of 6.0 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-61810?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-61810 names the fix: "This issue has been patched in version 1.4.1."

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-61810

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-61810?

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

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs