CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
criticalAuth Bypass

CVE-2026-57910

CVE-2026-57910 — WatchGuard Agent improper authentication allows unauthenticated remote code execution

Improper authentication in the WatchGuard Agent allows an unauthenticated attacker with network access to cause the agent to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, WatchGuard (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

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

WatchGuard

WatchGuard Agent

CVSS base

9.3

critical

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

WatchGuard Agent 1.17.02.0000, WatchGuard Agent 1.17.21.0000, WatchGuard Agent 1.25.13.0000

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
WatchGuardWatchGuard Agent0 to < 1.25.13.0000Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Scope

X

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

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
9.3CVSS 4.0critical——WatchGuard (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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-306 · Missing Authentication for Critical Function

  • Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
  • Other

Mitigation: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.

CWE-494 · Download of Code Without Integrity Check

  • Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
  • Alter Execution Logic
  • Other

Mitigation: Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function
  • CWE-347
  • CWE-494

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

CAPEC-36 · Using Unpublished InterfacesCAPEC-62 · Cross Site Request ForgeryCAPEC-12 · Choosing Message IdentifierCAPEC-166 · Force the System to Reset Values
  • T1195.002Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain
  • T1072Software Deployment Tools
  • T1195.001Supply Chain Compromise: Software Dependencies and Development Tools

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable WatchGuard Agent.
web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSidentity provider logsauthentication audit 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 9.3 (AV:N)

    Aug 25, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Aug 25, 2026 · NVD

  4. Reported · CVE Published

    Aug 25, 2026 · WatchGuard

  5. Added · GHSA-6c89-2v98-5qj2 published (critical)

    Aug 25, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

  • 1×CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 25, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

3 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-2026-57910 is WatchGuard Agent improper authentication allows unauthenticated remote code execution, a critical vulnerability affecting WatchGuard Agent from WatchGuard. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-57910. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-57910. 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 9.3 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.