Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-40623 is a high-severity Missing Authorization (CWE-862) vulnerability in Senselive X3500 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 26th 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 AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-40623 is a vulnerability in the web management interface of the SenseLive X3050 device that enables modification of critical system and network configuration parameters without sufficient validation and safety controls. Parameters such as IP addressing, watchdog timers, reconnect intervals, and service ports can be set to unsupported or unsafe values, directly affecting core device behavior and recovery mechanisms. This issue stems from inadequate enforcement of constraints on sensitive functions (CWE-862: Missing Authorization), potentially destabilizing device operation or rendering it persistently unavailable. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H).
Attackers with low privileges, such as authenticated users accessing the web management interface over the network, can exploit this vulnerability with low complexity and no user interaction required. Successful exploitation allows modification of configurations to unsupported values, leading to high-impact integrity and availability disruptions, including device destabilization or persistent unavailability, while confidentiality remains unaffected.
Mitigation guidance is available in official advisories, including CISA ICS Advisory ICSA-26-111-12 at https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-26-111-12, the corresponding CSAF JSON file at https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2026/icsa-26-111-12.json, and SenseLive contact information at https://senselive.io/contact.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25363
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability in SenseLive X3050's web management interface allows critical system and network configuration parameters to be modified without sufficient validation and safety controls. Due to inadequate enforcement of constraints on sensitive functions, parameters such as IP addressing, watchdog timers,…
more
reconnect intervals, and service ports can be set to unsupported or unsafe values. These configuration changes directly affect core device behaviour and recovery mechanisms. The lack of proper validation and safeguards allows critical system functions to be altered in a manner that can destabilize device operation or render the device persistently unavailable.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 5 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally eliminating missing authorization checks.
AC-24 mandates that access control decisions are applied to each request, preventing bypass of authorization logic.
AC-25 requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that ensures authorization checks cannot be omitted.
AC-6 reduces the set of actions reachable without proper authorization, limiting blast radius of missing checks.
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.
Explicitly requires defining, enforcing, and reviewing authorizations and least privilege, directly preventing missing authorization checks.
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.
Requiring formal authorization of every access request before rights are granted ensures that checks for required permissions are performed, preventing missing authorization checks from being introduced.
Mandatory authorization checks and central records of granted rights ensure that every access attempt is preceded by an explicit decision rather than relying on missing checks.
Segregating the approval of access rights from their implementation provides an independent check that reduces the impact of missing authorization checks in the resulting system configuration.
By requiring competent outsiders to verify that every function enforces the need-to-know principle, the control lowers the likelihood that missing authorization checks persist undetected.
Defining authorization responsibilities and reviewing risk-treatment progress throughout the project lifecycle catches missing authorization checks before the system is deployed.
Requiring authentication of systems and restricting which devices may join the network prevents missing-authorization flaws from being exploitable across network boundaries.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248581 OL 8 must require users to provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
- V-252656 The OL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-251704 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
- V-204429 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862