FUXA: Missing Authorization
CVE-2026-67443 is a critical-severity missing authorization vulnerability in FUXA from Frangoteam, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 9.2 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected FUXA versions: < 1.3.3. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.69% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 53% of scored CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Check which version of FUXA you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frangoteam | FUXA | < 1.3.3 | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- PresentThe target must be in a specific state or configuration for the attack to work.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In 1.3.2 and earlier, the allowDashboard authorization gate in server/integrations/node-red/index.js calls authJwt.verify for /nodered without inspecting the decoded identity. When nodeRedEnabled is true, secureEnabled is true, and nodeRedAuthMode is secure, a remote unauthenticated attacker can obtain a signed guest token from POST /api/heartbeat and use it to access the RED.httpAdmin editor and flow deployment API. Because the Node-RED configuration has no second adminAuth gate, the attacker can deploy function nodes or invoke fuxa.runScript and runtime.scriptsMgr.runScript, gaining control of FUXA project data, configuration, scripts, filesystem-capable runtime helpers, and potentially operating-system commands when nodeRedUnsafeModules is enabled. This issue is fixed in version 1.3.3.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- 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.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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.
- 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 and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in FUXA
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.9 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
Recent Missing Authorization vulnerabilities
- 8.7 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.