Focus on abus vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 08 Mar 2025, 23:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with abus. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.
For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.
Total abus CVEs: 14
Earliest CVE date: 27 Mar 2019, 14:29 UTC
Latest CVE date: 26 Oct 2023, 22:15 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2018-17879
30-day Count (Rolling): 0
365-day Count (Rolling): 0
Calendar-based Variation
Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.
Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): -100.0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): -100.0%
Average CVSS: 3.16
Max CVSS: 10.0
Critical CVEs (≥9): 1
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 7 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 6 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 1 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for abus, sorted by severity first and recency.
An issue was discovered on certain ABUS TVIP cameras. The CGI scripts allow remote attackers to execute code via system() as root. There are several injection points in various scripts.
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in certain ABUS TVIP cameras allows attackers to gain control of the program via crafted string sent to sprintf() function.
Due to incorrect access control, unauthenticated remote attackers can view the /video.mjpg video stream of certain ABUS TVIP cameras.
Hardcoded manufacturer credentials and an OS command injection vulnerability in the /cgi-bin/mft/ directory on ABUS TVIP TVIP20050 LM.1.6.18, TVIP10051 LM.1.6.18, TVIP11050 MG.1.6.03.05, TVIP20550 LM.1.6.18, TVIP10050 LM.1.6.18, TVIP11550 MG.1.6.03, TVIP21050 MG.1.6.03, and TVIP51550 MG.1.6.03 cameras allow remote attackers to execute code as root.
An issue was discovered on certain ABUS TVIP devices. Due to a path traversal in /opt/cgi/admin/filewrite, an attacker can write to files, and thus execute code arbitrarily with root privileges.
ABUS TVIP 20000-21150 devices allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in the /cgi-bin/mft/wireless_mft ap field.
The ABUS Secvest wireless alarm system FUAA50000 (v3.01.17) fails to properly authenticate some requests to its built-in HTTPS interface. Someone can use this vulnerability to obtain sensitive information from the system, such as usernames and passwords. This information can then be used to reconfigure or disable the alarm system.
The ABUS Secvest FUMO50110 hybrid module does not have any security mechanism that ensures confidentiality or integrity of RF packets that are exchanged with an alarm panel. This makes it easier to conduct wAppLoxx authentication-bypass attacks.
The wireless-communication feature of the ABUS Secvest FUBE50001 device does not encrypt sensitive data such as PIN codes or IDs of used proximity chip keys (RFID tokens). This makes it easier for an attacker to disarm the wireless alarm system.
An issue was discovered on ABUS Secvest FUAA50000 3.01.01 devices. Due to an insufficient implementation of jamming detection, an attacker is able to suppress correctly received RF messages sent between wireless peripheral components, e.g., wireless detectors or remote controls, and the ABUS Secvest alarm central. An attacker is able to perform a "reactive jamming" attack. The reactive jamming simply detects the start of a RF message sent by a component of the ABUS Secvest wireless alarm system, for instance a wireless motion detector (FUBW50000) or a remote control (FUBE50014 or FUBE50015), and overlays it with random data before the original RF message ends. Thereby, the receiver (alarm central) is not able to properly decode the original transmitted signal. This enables an attacker to suppress correctly received RF messages of the wireless alarm system in an unauthorized manner, for instance status messages sent by a detector indicating an intrusion.
Due to the use of an insecure RFID technology (MIFARE Classic), ABUS proximity chip keys (RFID tokens) of the ABUS Secvest FUAA50000 wireless alarm system can easily be cloned and used to deactivate the alarm system in an unauthorized way.
Due to unencrypted signal communication and predictability of rolling codes, an attacker can "desynchronize" an ABUS Secvest wireless remote control (FUBE50014 or FUBE50015) relative to its controlled Secvest wireless alarm system FUAA50000 3.01.01, so that sent commands by the remote control are not accepted anymore.
Due to the use of an insecure algorithm for rolling codes in the ABUS Secvest wireless alarm system FUAA50000 3.01.01 and its remote controls FUBE50014 and FUBE50015, an attacker is able to predict valid future rolling codes, and can thus remotely control the alarm system in an unauthorized way.
An issue was discovered on ABUS Secvest wireless alarm system FUAA50000 3.01.01 in conjunction with Secvest remote control FUBE50014 or FUBE50015. Because "encrypted signal transmission" is missing, an attacker is able to eavesdrop sensitive data as cleartext (for instance, the current rolling code state).