CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
highRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2026-19293

CVE-2026-19293 — SMP security request

SMP security request (from peripheral) does not include the maximum encryption key size supported. Using a key with less than the maximum keysize makes brute-forcing the key easier. See V6 in BLERP paper linked below.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, silabs.com (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

silabs.com

2 products listed

CVSS base

8.8

high

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade WiseConnect to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
silabs.comWiseConnect4.0.0 to < 4.1.0Vulnerable
silabs.comWiseConnect2.0.0 to < 2.14.0Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Adjacent

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.8CVSS 3.1high2.85.9silabs.com (CNA), GHSA

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-521 · Weak Password Requirements

  • Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Mitigation: A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length Restrictions against password reuse Restrictions against using common passwords Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several additional attributes. Complex passwords requiring mixed character sets (alpha, numeric, special, mixed case) Increasing the range of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. Unfortunately, a complex password may be difficult to memorize, encouraging a user to select a short password or to incorrectly manage the password (write it down). Another disadvantage of this approach is that it often does not result in a significant increases in overal password complexity due to people's predictable usage of various symbols. Large Minimum Length (encouraging passphrases instead of passwords) Increasing the number of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. A disadvantage of this approach is that selecting a good passphrase is not easy and poor passwords can still be generated. Some prompting may be needed to encourage long un-predictable passwords. Randomly Chosen Secrets Generating a password for the user can help make sure that length and complexity requirements are met, and can result in secure passwords being used. A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting password or passpharse may be too difficult to memorize, encouraging them to be written down. Password Expiration Requiring a periodic password change can reduce the time window that an adversary has to crack a password, while also limiting the damage caused by password exposures at other locations. Password expiration may be a good mitigating technique when long complex passwords are not desired. See NIST 800-63B https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-63b.pdf Sections: 5.1.1, 10.2.1, and Appendix A for further information on password requirements.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-521

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-112 · Brute ForceCAPEC-16 · Dictionary-based Password AttackCAPEC-49 · Password Brute ForcingCAPEC-509 · KerberoastingCAPEC-55 · Rainbow Table Password CrackingCAPEC-555 · Remote Services with Stolen CredentialsCAPEC-561 · Windows Admin Shares with Stolen CredentialsCAPEC-565 · Password SprayingCAPEC-70 · Try Common or Default Usernames and Passwords
  • T1110Brute Force
  • T1110.001Brute Force: Password Guessing
  • T1558.003Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets: Kerberoasting

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

4

1 of the 4 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 4 public PoC repositories were reported.
EDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 8.8 (AV:A)

    Aug 13, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Aug 13, 2026 · NVD

  4. Added · GHSA-vm4r-7vjx-6f97 published (high)

    Aug 13, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

References

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-19293 is SMP security request, a high vulnerability affecting WiseConnect from silabs.com. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 4 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.