CVE-2026-58704
In Cellular Modem, there is a possible permission bypass due to a logic error in the code.
High
Known exploited
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.62%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.98% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Sep 16, 2026
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Google Pixel Improper Authorization Vulnerability (Google Pixel). Required action: Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Sep 19, 2026.
Description
In Cellular Modem, there is a possible permission bypass due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-2gc7-j998-5xx6 Nginx UI: Account Takeover via Missing `RequireSecureSession` on User Management Endpoint | High | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-w2ch-4xgr-22ww Vikunja: Task relation deletion does not check read access to the other task, allowing cross-project relation removal | Low | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-cvw4-55pp-3hfq Yamcs's Missing Authorization on Role and Privilege Enumeration Endpoints Allows Any Authenticated User to Disclose Full Security Configuration | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-gg93-x632-9ccv Vikunja vulnerable to Improper Authorization and Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key | High | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-f27p-pw2p-9pr4 Vikunja has a project duplication bypasses write-permission check on the target parent project | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-m5w8-4gq2-6f8x vm2: NodeVM `builtin: ['*']` exposes `os` and `dns` — process-wide observability reads AND writes that hijack the host (sibling class of GHSA-9g8x-92q2-p28f) | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-p8x7-9vfw-p7vc Craft CMS: Arbitrary user password reset leading to administrator account takeover | High | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-chm3-vqcf-52rx Flowise: Cross-workspace credential IDOR in openai-assistants-vector-store | High | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor