CVE-2026-0714 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-0714 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-0714: A physical attack vulnerability exists in certain Moxa industrial computers using TPM-backed LUKS full-disk encryption on Moxa Industrial Linux 3, where the discrete TPM is connected to the CPU via an SPI bus. Exploitation requires invasive physical access, including opening the device and attaching external equipment to the SPI bus to capture TPM communications. If successful, the captured data may allow offline decryption of eMMC contents. This attack cannot be performed through brief or opportunistic physical access and requires extended physical access, possession of the device, appropriate equipment, and sufficient time for signal capture and analysis. Remote exploitation is not possible.

CVE-2026-0714 References

External References

• https://www.moxa.com/en/support/product-support/security-advisory/mpsa-255121-cve-2026-0714-cve-2026-0715-multiple-vulnerabilities-in-industrial-computers

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• Session Sidejacking CAPEC-102 Session sidejacking takes advantage of an unencrypted communication channel between a victim and target system. The attacker sniffs traffic on a network looking for session tokens in unencrypted traffic. Once a session token is captured, the attacker performs malicious actions by using the stolen token with the targeted application to impersonate the victim. This attack is a specific method of session hijacking, which is exploiting a valid session token to gain unauthorized access to a target system or information. Other methods to perform a session hijacking are session fixation, cross-site scripting, or compromising a user or server machine and stealing the session token.
• Interception CAPEC-117 An adversary monitors data streams to or from the target for information gathering purposes. This attack may be undertaken to solely gather sensitive information or to support a further attack against the target. This attack pattern can involve sniffing network traffic as well as other types of data streams (e.g. radio). The adversary can attempt to initiate the establishment of a data stream or passively observe the communications as they unfold. In all variants of this attack, the adversary is not the intended recipient of the data stream. In contrast to other means of gathering information (e.g., targeting data leaks), the adversary must actively position themself so as to observe explicit data channels (e.g. network traffic) and read the content. However, this attack differs from a Adversary-In-the-Middle (CAPEC-94) attack, as the adversary does not alter the content of the communications nor forward data to the intended recipient.
• Harvesting Information via API Event Monitoring CAPEC-383 An adversary hosts an event within an application framework and then monitors the data exchanged during the course of the event for the purpose of harvesting any important data leaked during the transactions. One example could be harvesting lists of usernames or userIDs for the purpose of sending spam messages to those users. One example of this type of attack involves the adversary creating an event within the sub-application. Assume the adversary hosts a "virtual sale" of rare items. As other users enter the event, the attacker records via AiTM (CAPEC-94) proxy the user_ids and usernames of everyone who attends. The adversary would then be able to spam those users within the application using an automated script.
• Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content CAPEC-477 An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
• Sniff Application Code CAPEC-65 An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-1707 – pgAdmin versions 9.11 are affected by a Restore restriction bypass via key disclosure vulnerability that occurs when running in server mode and per...
• CVE-2025-70073 – An issue in ChestnutCMS v.1.5.8 and before allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the template creation function
• CVE-2025-68121 – During session resumption in crypto/tls, if the underlying Config has its ClientCAs or RootCAs fields mutated between the initial handshake and the...
• CVE-2025-58190 – The html.Parse function in golang.org/x/net/html has an infinite parsing loop when processing certain inputs, which can lead to denial of service (...
• CVE-2025-47911 – The html.Parse function in golang.org/x/net/html has quadratic parsing complexity when processing certain inputs, which can lead to denial of servi...