Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-46356 is a medium-severity Authentication Bypass by Spoofing (CWE-290) vulnerability in Fleetdm Fleet. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Brute Force (T1110); ranked at the 20th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-30416
Vulnerability Data
Fleet is open source device management software. Prior to version 4.80.1, a vulnerability in Fleet's IP extraction logic allows unauthenticated attackers to bypass API rate limiting by spoofing client IP headers. This may allow brute-force login attempts or other abuse…
more
against Fleet instances exposed to the public internet. Fleet extracted client IP addresses from request headers (`True-Client-IP`, `X-Real-IP`, `X-Forwarded-For`) without validating that those headers originate from a trusted proxy. The extracted IP is used as the key for rate limiting and IP ban decisions. As a result, an attacker could rotate the value of these headers on each request, causing Fleet to treat each attempt as coming from a different client. This effectively bypasses per-IP rate limits on sensitive endpoints such as the login API, enabling unrestricted brute-force or credential stuffing attacks. This issue primarily affects Fleet instances that are directly exposed to the internet without a reverse proxy that overwrites forwarded-IP headers. Instances behind a properly configured proxy or WAF are less affected. Version 4.80.1 contains a patch. If an immediate upgrade is not possible, administrators should ensure Fleet is deployed behind a reverse proxy (e.g., nginx, Cloudflare, AWS ALB) that overwrites `X-Forwarded-For` with the true client IP, and apply rate limiting at the proxy or WAF layer.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Vulnerability directly bypasses IP-based rate limiting on login endpoints, enabling brute-force password guessing and credential stuffing attacks against public-facing instances.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of untrusted HTTP headers (True-Client-IP, X-Forwarded-For, etc.) before they are used as rate-limit keys, blocking the spoofing that enables brute-force bypass.
Enforces boundary protection and trusted-proxy rules so that client-IP headers are only accepted from authorized intermediaries, preventing direct exposure and header spoofing against the Fleet instance.
Requires proper enforcement of access-control decisions (including rate limits) based on authenticated client identity rather than spoofable headers, mitigating the login brute-force path.
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.
Protecting, conveying, and verifying identity assertions specifically prevents the spoofing that enables authentication bypass.
Requiring authentication of users/services/hardware directly counters spoofing-based bypass when strong methods are used.
Proofing and binding identities reduces spoofing opportunities during enrollment but does not address runtime authentication implementation flaws.
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.
Secure authentication control directly mitigates authentication bypass by spoofing.
Authentication information management directly addresses credential handling that prevents spoofing.
Security testing can detect spoofing vulnerabilities but does not prevent them by itself.
Access control policy reduces spoofing opportunities but does not prescribe authentication mechanisms.
Identity management supports unique identities but does not guarantee resistance to spoofing.
Access rights assignment limits exposure but does not enforce authentication strength.