CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
highRemote Code Exec

CVE-2026-63426

CVE-2026-63426 — During an internal security assessment, a potential vulnerability was discovered in Lenovo Dock Manager that could allow an authenticated…

During an internal security assessment, a potential vulnerability was discovered in Lenovo Dock Manager that could allow an authenticated local user to perform an arbitrary file deletion with elevated privileges.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, Lenovo (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

Lenovo

Dock Manager

CVSS base

7.1

high · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Update Lenovo Dock Manager to version 1.6.5.3 or later.

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
LenovoDock Manager0 to < 1.6.5.3Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

High

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.1CVSS 3.1high1.85.2lenovo.com (CNA), Lenovo (CNA), GHSA
6.9CVSS 4.0mediumLenovo (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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-59 · Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')

  • Read Files or Directories
  • Modify Files or Directories
  • Bypass Protection Mechanism
  • Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Mitigation: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to provide protected areas that can be trusted.::

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-59

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

CAPEC-132 · Symlink AttackCAPEC-17 · Using Malicious FilesCAPEC-76 · Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
  • T1547.009Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Shortcut Modification
  • T1574.005Hijack Execution Flow: Executable Installer File Permissions Weakness
  • T1574.010Hijack Execution Flow: Services File Permissions Weakness

Detection

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

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 7.1 (AV:L)

    Aug 13, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Aug 13, 2026 · NVD

  4. Added · GHSA-2mcq-jg3f-chqr published (medium)

    Aug 13, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

References

4 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-2026-63426 is During an internal security assessment, a potential vulnerability was discovered in Lenovo Dock Manager that could allow an authenticated…, a high vulnerability affecting Dock Manager from Lenovo. 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-2026-63426. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-63426. 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 7.1 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.