Focus on meshtastic vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 08 Mar 2026, 23:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with meshtastic. 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 meshtastic CVEs: 2
Earliest CVE date: 29 Dec 2025, 17:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 28 Jan 2026, 00:15 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2025-55292
30-day Count (Rolling): 0
365-day Count (Rolling): 2
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): -100.0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): -100.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%
Average CVSS: 0.0
Max CVSS: 0
Critical CVEs (≥9): 0
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 2 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 0 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 0 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for meshtastic, sorted by severity first and recency.
Meshtastic is an open source mesh networking solution. In the current Meshtastic architecture, a Node is identified by their NodeID, generated from the MAC address, rather than their public key. This aspect downgrades the security, specifically by abusing the HAM mode which doesn't use encryption. An attacker can, as such, forge a NodeInfo on behalf of a victim node advertising that the HAM mode is enabled. This, in turn, will allow the other nodes on the mesh to accept the new information and overwriting the NodeDB. The other nodes will then only be able to send direct messages to the victim by using the shared channel key instead of the PKC. Additionally, because HAM mode by design doesn't provide any confidentiality or authentication of information, the attacker could potentially also be able to change the Node details, like the full name, short code, etc. To keep the attack persistent, it is enough to regularly resend the forged NodeInfo, in particular right after the victim sends their own. A patch is available in version 2.7.6.834c3c5.
Meshtastic is an open source mesh networking solution. The Meshtastic firmware (starting from version 2.5) introduces asymmetric encryption (PKI) for direct messages, but when the `pki_encrypted` flag is missing, the firmware silently falls back to legacy AES-256-CTR channel encryption. This was an intentional decision to maintain backwards compatibility. However, the end-user applications, like Web app, iOS/Android app, and applications built on top of Meshtastic using the SDK, did not have a way to differentiate between end-to-end encrypted DMs and the legacy DMs. This creates a downgrade attack path where adversaries who know a shared channel key can craft and inject spoofed direct messages that are displayed as if they were PKC encrypted. Users are not given any feedback of whether a direct message was decrypted with PKI or with legacy symmetric encryption, undermining the expected security guarantees of the PKI rollout. Version 2.7.15 fixes this issue.