CVE-2026-84869
Access Control in Connectwise Screenconnect ≤ 26.6.5.9742
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-84869 is a critical-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Connectwise Screenconnect. Its CVSS base score is 9.9 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism (T1548); ranked in the top 49% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-2 (Account Management) and AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-74053
Vulnerability Data
A condition in the ScreenConnect client may allow files to be transferred and executed through an active remote session without authorization or Host confirmation in certain circumstances. ScreenConnect servers are not impacted.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 11 September 2026
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 8 hardening rules · 6 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.
Account management directly governs assignment and tracking of privileges so proper implementation stops the weakness from being introduced.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions ensures privileges are evaluated rather than assumed or omitted.
AC-25 requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that ensures authorization checks cannot be omitted.
Separation of duties constrains how privileges may be assigned, reducing the chance of overly broad actor control.
Least privilege is the direct countermeasure to improper privilege management; implementing it eliminates the root cause.
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.
PR.AA-05 enforces least privilege/SoD and periodic reviews that directly remove most privilege-assignment defects, yet CWE-269 also covers escalation paths and role design outside a single access-management control.
PR.AA-01 supplies credential/identity lifecycle support that can reduce some privilege-assignment errors but does not itself assign, modify, or check privileges, leaving most of CWE-269's risk unaddressed.
Config baselines and default reviews can enforce some privilege-related settings (one facet) but do not address code-level assignment/tracking logic that defines CWE-269.
PR.PS-05 can partially limit exploitability of some privilege issues via execution restrictions, but does not address the core design/implementation flaws of CWE-269 at all.
PR.DS-10 protects data-in-use without touching privilege assignment/tracking, so it neither prevents CWE-269 nor removes more than one narrow facet of its risk.
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.
Explicit restrictions on privileged access and segregation of duties limit the scope of privileges that can be assigned, reducing the chance that excessive or unnecessary privileges are granted to entities.
Requiring owner approval, segregation of duties, and periodic reviews prevents the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges to users or processes.
Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.
Separating duties such as developing software from administering production systems prevents any one person from accumulating excessive privileges that would constitute improper privilege management.
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.
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
Windows 10 (1 rule)
- V-220712 Only accounts responsible for the administration of a system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows Server 2016 (1 rule)
- V-225007 Only administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows Server 2019 (1 rule)
- V-205746 Windows Server 2019 must only allow Administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system to have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269