Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.39% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2019
CVE-2018-18558High confidence
Affected product: Improper Input Validation
Unknown · Unknown
6.4MediumCVSS 3.0
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Unknown Unknown and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
An issue was discovered in Espressif ESP-IDF 2.x and 3.x before 3.0.6 and 3.1.x before 3.1.1. Insufficient validation of input data in the 2nd stage bootloader allows a physically proximate attacker to bypass secure boot checks and execute arbitrary code, by crafting an application binary that overwrites a bootloader code segment in process_segment in components/bootloader_support/src/esp_image_format.c. The attack is effective when the flash encryption feature is not enabled, or if the attacker finds a different vulnerability that allows them to write this binary to flash memory.
What
An issue was discovered in Espressif ESP-IDF 2.x and 3.x before 3.0.6 and 3.1.x before 3.1.1. Insufficient validation of input data in the 2nd stage bootloader allows a physically proximate attacker to bypass secure boot checks and execute arbitrary code, by crafting an application binary that overwrites a bootloader code segment in process_segment in components/bootloader_support/src/esp_image_format.c. The attack is effective when the flash encryption feature is not enabled, or if the attacker finds a different vulnerability that allows them to write this binary to flash memory.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through physical access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
An issue was discovered in Espressif ESP-IDF 2.x and 3.x before 3.0.6 and 3.1.x before 3.1.1. Insufficient validation of input data in the 2nd stage bootloader allows a physically proximate attacker to bypass secure boot checks and execute arbitrary code, by crafting an application binary that overwrites a bootloader code segment in process_segment in components/bootloader_support/src/esp_image_format.c. The attack is effective when the flash encryption feature is not enabled, or if the attacker finds a different vulnerability that allows them to write this binary to flash memory.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through physical access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- physical access → Improper Input Validation → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Physical
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVPhysicalAttack vector: The attacker needs physical access to the vulnerable system.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- n/a
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 13 May 2019 · Last source change 5 Aug 2024, 11:15 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-01
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2018-10278
Product sourceUnavailable
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2018-10278 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2018-10278"}
- SeveritySeverity changed from Unknown to Medium.NIST NVD ↗
- Before
- Unknown
- After
- Medium
- CVSS scoreCVSS score changed from not recorded to 6.4 (CVSS 3.0 · NIST NVD · CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).NIST NVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- 6.4 (CVSS 3.0 · NIST NVD · CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.