Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-73241. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-73241 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with identity provider logs, authentication audit logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-73241 using CVSS 8.3, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

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. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highAuth Bypasspublic exploit

CVE-2026-73241

CVE-2026-73241 — FreeRDP: RDSTLS server authentication bypass: a credential-less Capabilities PDU is accepted at the auth step (fail-open `resultCode`)

Q: What is CVE-2026-73241?

CVE-2026-73241 is FreeRDP: RDSTLS server authentication bypass: a credential-less Capabilities PDU is accepted at the auth step (fail-open `resultCode`). The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Auth Bypass mapped to CWE-287 Improper Authentication.

FreeRDP is a free implementation of the Remote Desktop Protocol. Prior to 3.30.0, FreeRDP server-side RDSTLS in libfreerdp/core/rdstls.c accepts an attacker-supplied RDSTLS_TYPE_CAPABILITIES PDU while rdstls_server_authenticate is waiting for RDSTLS_TYPE_AUTHREQ, leaving resultCode at RDSTLS_RESULT_SUCCESS and allowing a remote unauthenticated client to bypass the RedirectionGuid, username, domain, or password checks. This issue is fixed in version 3.30.0.

Published Aug 11, 2026Updated Aug 11, 2026Sources: NVD, FreeRDP (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

FreeRDP

CVSS base

8.3

high

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade FreeRDP 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.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
FreeRDP	FreeRDP	< 3.30.0	Vulnerable

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
8.3	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	FreeRDP (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/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-287 · Improper Authentication

Read Application Data
Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Mitigation: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.::

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-287Improper Authentication

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

CAPEC-151 · Identity SpoofingCAPEC-57 · Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive DataCAPEC-194 · Fake the Source of DataCAPEC-22 · Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-650 · Upload a Web Shell to a Web ServerCAPEC-593 · Session HijackingCAPEC-114 · Authentication AbuseCAPEC-94 · Man in the Middle AttackCAPEC-633 · Token ImpersonationCAPEC-115 · Authentication Bypass

T1548Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism
T1040Network Sniffing
T1185Browser Session Hijacking

Public exploit

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

Repositories

Detection

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

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /core/rdstls.c.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

identity 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.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.3
Aug 11, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 11, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by mitre
Aug 11, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

4 on the record

github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/commit/b05a9510787c83c87ffc5fa8d7cc9f06ed971695
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/pull/13065
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/releases/tag/3.30.0
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/security/advisories/GHSA-rqgv-grx4-xm6x
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre

Elsewhere on this site

FreeRDPevery CVE for this vendor
Auth Bypasssame class
CWE-287other pages naming this weakness

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-2026-73241 is FreeRDP: RDSTLS server authentication bypass: a credential-less Capabilities PDU is accepted at the auth step (fail-open `resultCode`), a high vulnerability affecting FreeRDP from FreeRDP. 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-2026-73241. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 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 8.3 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.