Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-23999 is a low-severity Use of Insufficiently Random Values (CWE-330) vulnerability in Fleetdm Fleet. Its CVSS base score is 0.6 (Low).
Operationally, ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to IA-5 (Authenticator Management) and AC-7 (Unsuccessful Logon Attempts) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8826
Vulnerability Data
Fleet is open source device management software. In versions prior to 4.80.1, Fleet generated device lock and wipe PINs using a predictable algorithm based solely on the current Unix timestamp. Because no secret key or additional entropy was used, the…
more
resulting PIN could potentially be derived if the approximate time the device was locked is known. Fleet’s device lock and wipe commands generate a 6-digit PIN that is displayed to administrators for unlocking a device. In affected versions, this PIN was deterministically derived from the current timestamp. An attacker with physical possession of a locked device and knowledge of the approximate time the lock command was issued could theoretically predict the correct PIN within a limited search window. However, successful exploitation is constrained by multiple factors: Physical access to the device is required, the approximate lock time must be known, the operating system enforces rate limiting on PIN entry attempts, attempts would need to be spread over, and device wipe operations would typically complete before sufficient attempts could be made. As a result, this issue does not allow remote exploitation, fleet-wide compromise, or bypass of Fleet authentication controls. Version 4.80.1 contains a patch. No known workarounds are available.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Insufficient information to map techniques.CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requires PIN authenticators to possess sufficient strength of mechanism, directly preventing deterministic timestamp-based generation.
Mandates approved cryptographic mechanisms (including RNG) for security functions such as PIN derivation.
Enforces rate limiting on failed PIN attempts, mitigating the practical impact of any predictable values.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly enforce use of cryptographically strong RNGs and catch insufficient randomness during design, coding, and testing.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Cryptographic controls require use of approved, sufficiently random values for keys and nonces.
Security testing can detect weak randomness but does not prescribe the control itself.
Secure SDLC processes include verification steps that can catch insufficient randomness but do not directly specify RNG requirements.
Secure coding standards explicitly prohibit use of weak or predictable random number generators.
Secure authentication mechanisms depend on unpredictable values (nonces, salts, session tokens) to resist guessing.